No, Ch'i, please don't misunderstand my post. In the context of the discussion "why doesn't Japan just take care of this", A Japanese strike would trigger the whole of NK's military machine. Every button that could be pushed, would be. Every soldier, airplane, tank, artillery piece, ship, etc. would unload everything they had at what ever it was pointed at. Japan, SK, China, Russia, wherever. That would invlolve the massive loss of innocent life, AND bring in a cruise missile strike of unimaginable proportion. My point was that instead of Japan striking, cut to the chase and take it all out at the beginning.

Let me also clarify that I think diplomacy is by far the best solution. Kim is difficult to deal with, unpredictable and so on, but that is the path that must be pursued! I know you all don't have me pegged in a nice little box because I post so extensively in the Politics "P***ing match" board, but I am no supporter of cowboy politics. I fear that the current admin in DC is going to paint themselves into another corner on this one, and use their "most expedient" solution.

Zombie Ronnie will rise from the grave and save us all.

http://wso.williams.edu/orgs/trivia/bombing/bombing.wav

That is of course unless Ch'i can raise the skeleton of Neville Chamberlain to save us all with diplomacy.

If the last Bond film is any indication, he is probably having sex with Halle Berry.

What would be the real issue of bombing some shit in North Korea at this current time? I mean the diplomatic dance has been useless since Kim Jong managed to black mail and renig on Clinton in the 90's. These multi-party talks are nice and all, but they haven't accomplished anything. I suppose the deterrent of offensive military action against NK would be the ensuing barrage of 70,000+ sorties over Seoul on day one.

Seems to me the window of oppurtunity for anything useful has passed. They have nuke(s) (presumably). The only action that would work sans caving into black mail and double crossing reminiscent of the 90's is military action, but I don't think many here would be down.

Please excuse the partisan nature of this question, but I find myself having to ask it. People here keep dropping the "OMG we invaded Iraq for WMD and they didn't have them, but NK does, Bush is teh devil". If you are one of them, is military action a possibilty, or what? What are other options besides our kicking around the Japanese military capacity?

And a giant laser from space, cleverly named Icurus, will destroy all the landmines on the NK/SK border. Die Another Day sucked.
Is military action a possibility? Shit yes. North Korea didn't have to sign that non-nuke treaty. No on had an isotope to their head. They signed it and they will stick to it. I'd like to see all treaties and conventions stuck to, or else. The fact is, North Korea would lose against China, Russia, the US, or the UK without a doubt in my mind. The problem is will the regime change go as well as Japan once did? If we are going to gung ho into NK, we need a fucking plan. How to go in, how to win, how to rebuild, and how to leave, and it can't cost the US hundreds of billions more dollars that we don't have.

And Bush is teh devil.

No more than I have to. You just reinforced your earlier post with the same point. Do you comprehend what you post, or should I assume you don't say what you mean?

Diplomacy never works. We just like fooling ourselves into believing it does.

*sigh* I guess assuming is what you're best at. If you read a bit more carefully, in your answer to my post you assumed that I wanted the massive loss of innocent life. In my response to your assumption, I said that I believed diplomacy to be the best solution. Clear enough?

What I want is a nicer car, and ringside tickets to the November Sumo tournament in Kyushu.:lol:

I assumed nothing. A barrage would kill thousands of people. Such is the fallout of a barrage of "unimaginable proportion." With such a statement is an underlying acceptance of the repercussions. Specific bombing of military targets would be a more acceptable plan.

Then we will die as fools.

You assumed much. If you are going to parse an arguement, please give careful consideration to ALL the words. "In the context of" is generally accepted as a way to put a thought or idea into a specific framework. In my arguement I specifically placed my thought in a specific context. And yes, IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT, there would be a wholescale slaughter, because NK has a huge army of various weaponery, including over 1,000,000 soldiers, spread over a wide area, the elimination of which would require a barrage.

Outside of that specific context, as I stated, I feel diplomacy is the best solution.

I don't mean to beat this to death, but you painted me with a brush that was inaccurate by saying that I "wanted" the US, Russia, and China to cause thousands of innocent deaths. Restating an arguement with "what you're saying is...", or "So you want...", rather than phrasing at a question; "Are you saying...", or "Do you want..." is a bit disingenious, and doesn't reflect well on the one assuming rather than seeking clarification.

You don't know me, I don't know you, and you had no track record of my political leanings or thinking to make that statement. Next time you want clarification of a point, please just ask.

China, would have a cow if Japan did any kind of strike...

South Korea too.

All of Asia is in fear of any type of active Japanese army.

I still didn't assume, and now understand exactly what you mean.

When I said "so you want...?", it was a question. I was seeking clarification. I apologize if this came off as an accusation, but it wasn't.

I mean the following in the most non-confrontational way possible: You assumed I painted you with a brush, then accused me of assuming (several times), while defending your assumption about NK's total commitment. All the while hinting at insult......which begat this confrontation. My original question was, in fact, a question. Thus the question mark. You, yourself, asked me politely not to misunderstand your post, and yet failed to offer me that same courtesy.

Will, we don't have assets in Asia because we have tradtionally been too suspsicious of our own "assets" - Asian-Americans. It's too bad really.

A strike is the wrong way to go in this situation... and for some reason.. this administration agrees. A strike is exactly what Kim wants and if we give it to him he will use it to start a nuclear war. He is looking for the excuse and seems to be doing anything he can to provoke it.

At this point what we should do is isolate the country. Completely cut it of from all aid and trade and stop fucking around. When the people in the country start to starve they'll begin to rethink their choice in leadership. Even if this solution does provoke a war it will have weakened the NK forces and people so much they will not stand much of a chance in combat.. nuclear or otherwise.. and the peope will be more willing to help fight against their own state leadership.

At this point the people are (most likely) pumped up about their new-found nuclear "strength". They'll be more inclined to be behind their leader at this point in time because they see him as strong. Now is not to the time to attack. Sanctions will help change their minds and maybe Kim's. Though, while it is unlikely Kim will change on this, he will have little choice but to cooperate. He knows he doesn't stand any chance even with his shiny new nukes.

Sanctions may really be the only way to effectively deal with this situation. As much as it pains me to agree with the Bush administration... they are actually taking the right course of action on this "problem". (Iraq tho.. woah..way off.. any 3rd grader could have told you what was going to happen with that plan...)

According to wikipedia, Russia has the most nuclear warheads. And they only have a list of countries with "declared warheads" which is quite worrying.

However, I have always understood the nuclear race to be a deterrant to other countries, and had the bombing of Hiroshishima and Nagasaki not happened, not that I condone those events, the world might have even more.

I don't think this will lead to a war, but I also don't think they're doing themselves any favours in the current political situation around the world.

But why should North Korea be condemned for having what our countries already have? It would be like condemning China for having a growing emerging economy and emposing santions on them to stop them become a future super power IMO

So, you want to apologize? Accepted.

My apologies as well. We are both on the same page on this thing.:icare:

Because the power to incinerate millions of people should not be in the hands of a psycopath. There is a difference between the peaceful economic growth of a country and the obtaining of weaponry with the capability to vaporize many thousands of people in a split second. Even nuclear power is acceptable (such as in the case of Iran.) Every country has the right to pursue nuclear power (no matter what certain administrations think) and this is even acceptable in the nuclear non-prolifertaion treaty iirc. But when it comes to nuclear weaponry it is a completely different story.

Good one. We need a little levity with this thing. The GOP will probably use it to strike fear in our hearts before the election. Or even had lobbiests pay them to conduct the test!!

Very, very, very true.

Its a case of 'Many times bitten, very shy.'

Japan bombing Korea may bring up some very bad memories.

Millions of people have already starved to death in NK, yes? The leadership doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the suffering of it's own people, much less anyone else's.

Not that I disagree, but have sanctions *ever* worked with any "rogue" country?

I'm so confused. Why haven't we invaded the hell outta North Korea?

Wasn't our entire justification for going into Iraq because they were hiding potential WMDs? We didn't even find any, for crissake. Now NK is blowing up verified nukes underground and we don't do anything? Is it because Iraq was an easier target? I guess all we're missing is a North Korean to blow up a large US building.

NK is just a smokescreen for the left to say 'what about' but don't fool youself to think their would be any support for a real attack. I'd be far more inclined and worried about Iran and their nuclear program than NK. NK is disturbing, but its an isolated fucked up little nation. NK might sell Islamic radicals a bomb, Iran is controlled by them.

The political climate is such in the US right now we can't really do anything. We are in fact crippled. Now another question is why isn't France, Germany, Italy, or any of those nations doing something about it? As usual everyone expects and hopes the US does something.

Probably because everyone is aware that very few nations possess the logistical means (overseas bases and aircraft carriers, primarily) to carry out a successful long range attack and takeover of another country. Even the US can't seem to manage that task, not sure why you would think Germany could pull it off.

China, Russia and Japan are best poised to do this, acting in concert, which is why everyone keeps mentioning them, even though it is unlikely they will act in a military fashion.

So the only nation with military resources in Europe is the UK?

China, Russia, and Japan working together would be as likely as Rush Limbaugh, Osma Bin Laden, and Howard Dean having a BBQ together.

The Russian military is not up to the task currently, China doesn't really want to do anything, and Japan doing so would be politically bad. Therefore if ANYONE is going to do something its going to be from the west.

I have a question - How patched up is Japan and China's relationship? I've seen some stuff on WWII that makes it seem like it would be a pretty rocky path to work through.

what exactly do you folks mean by "doing anything"?
is it assumed that "doing something" means doing something militarily? why?
the sanctions regime imposed on iraq worked--the bush administration did not like this, but the facts have since demonstrated--with great clarity--that they worked.
north korea is in many ways more complex, but still the un seems a more logical route to go than the cowboy route.
it's going to be diplomacy, folks.


to my amazement, i agree with ustwo: the states is crippled--but i think mostly as a function of the mind-bending incompetence of the bush administration itself. perhaps this moment of agreement would be dissipated if he explained what he meant by "political context" in his post--i have the feeling that he blames opposition to the bush administration rather than the administration itself, but who knows.



o yes: mojo--i do not think bush is the devil.
he is just a guy, just a kind of fuck up.
in geopolitical strategy terms, his administration is a disaster, and his administration is the main reason the us find itself with no good options in this situation. and the stakes are quite high.

No, apparently you are unaware, however, of how long distance operations work. One requires the capacity to launch a strike from within a certain distance and with the ability to refuel and resupply quickly. The United States and the UK have this capability in that they own islands and bases at Diego Garcia, in South Korea, in Japan, and other such locations. Germany, last I checked, did not. Further, relatively few nations retain aircraft carriers - the UK was months away from mothballing their own carriers in the early 80s, when Argentina happily gave them an excuse not to scrap them by invading the Falklands.

As to China, Russia and Japan, I did not suggest they were likely to work together, only that they are best suited, logistically, to deal with NK as they are close by.

Gatorade, Japan and China are pretty shaky. The new PM has recently flown to China and South Korea in an effort to mend relations. It will take time and lot of effort on the Japanese to get relations up.

Bottom line: Asia (China, the Koreas at the top of the list), does not want to see a militarily active Japan, especially in the neighborhood.

Russia's military is a joke at the moment and s Korea actually cares about its bretheren in N K is hesitant to engage in a conflict where casualties will most certainly be very high. NK doesn't care about casualties and would in fact, blame everyone else for a war that they started. Perfect excuse for lil' Kim: "They made me start the war!"

I thought there were sanctions now on NK and it's not working.

Edit: Ok I see what you are saying RB. You mean UN sanctions after the US ones. That seems like a logical place to start, though they should have enacted sanctions a long time ago. I don't think there is too much wiggle room anymore as their economy is such shit I don't think UN sanctions will do much to help. China has to cut off aid. ALL aid to NK or at least threaten to cut off aid credibly.

George Bush?

ahem

They worked... if you consider millions of dollars pouring into Kofi Annan's family's bank accounts due to kickbacks. If you count the food/medicine money going to buying French and Chinese weapon systems dating 2001-2.

My words exactly, lol!!!

You forgot the billions in illegal oil flow, and then that little statistic of 1.5million civilian deaths due to neglect from Saddam hording the aid money.

well, seaver and mojo--where were the weapons systems then?
if the sanctions did not work really, where are they?

show the world where they are and maybe i'll think about taking your john birch society nonsense seriously. maybe. but until you find the weapons systems, your arguments about the sanctions regime imposed on iraq really do not mean anything. and wasn't this the kind of "thinking" behind the iraq debacle in the first place? o yes: the un is corrupt harumph harumph..but...again...where are the weapons systems?

besides, even if what you both say was relevant to the question at hand, even if the un is not an option, the americans can do nothing about north korea because they are stretched too thin as a function of iraq.

like i keep saying, most of these geopolitically oriented military strategy posts above are simple fantasy, like imaginary baseball games.

it looks like you are going to see a sanctions regime that will operate as a figleaf in front of bilateral diplomacy. everything else is simply meaningless bluster.

but indulge me: what was your plan again, seaver and mojo?

I'm for pushing buttons. But that's just how I roll.

NK has been under sanctions, the result being the "million man army" is significantly degraded even though it receives priority funding from a nearly bankrupt nation. Emergency food shipments are insufficient to offset the failed farming techniques, and the civilian population is starving.

Aggrandizing Kim II as one of the triad of the axis of evil, was foolish hubris on the part of Bush. That he now defends his lack of action regarding NK by insisting "diplomacy" takes time should be considered an insult to the intelligence of ... well, nevermind.

See video of Bush answering press questions re: North Korea THREE months ago:

Link

While I have no doubt Saddam caused tons of needless deaths, I'm curious about the origin of that number, as there has not been a reasonably accurate census done in Iraq for about 20 years.

This is the only guesstimate data from the CIA world fact book I could locate:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=21

As others have mentioned, the scariest scenario is the one in which North Korea sells Al Qaeda a nuke for cash.

North Korea has been caught in the past counterfeiting US $100 bills and selling them by the truckload, in addition to being a player in the heroin trade. There is nothing they won't stoop to in order to make a buck. If it hurts the U.S. in the process, well - they consider it a twofer.

Military force is not an option - at the sighting of the first missile or airplane, North Korea can fire enough well-fortified artillery to completely obliterate Seoul within a few hours. Sure - we ( a U.N. coalition ) could eventually beat North Korea, but casualties could be in the millions.

Our best bet is to rethink our Cowboy Diplomacy and talk to them. If we can convince them to become a part of the world community, they will fear us less and lose their reason to feel the necessity to be a nuclear power.

It worked in South Africa. Of course, SA's leaders weren't insane megolomaniacs.

Something needs to be done soon, though, for two reasons:

1. They're like a bratty child, testing limits. They need to learn there are consequences for actions (and there needs to be consequences).
2. Iran is watching and learning - and we all know they're preparing their own power play.

Wow! I hadn't heard of this before. Would you point me to a source? Thanks.

Elph, this happened approximately around Jan-Feb in 2006. It was big news, try to do a google search if you can cause some of the old news link may be taken down.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1229-5045r.htm

According to this article, it's (counterfeiting) been going on for at least a decade, and brings in $250M a year to North Korea.

Here'a an article about heroin:

http://opioids.com/korea/

More song and dance I'm assuming, but word has just left Pyongyang stating any further international pressure or sanctions will be considered an act of war and will be responded to in kind with a physical reaction. I suppose we should all go bury our heads in the sand now.