North Korea tests nuke - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

highthief · 10-11-2006, 07:13 AM

I wonder what would happen if NK took a few shots at SK or Japan. Does anyone have the stomach or means to wage a war against NK, other than perhaps China? The US is overstretched as it stands, as is the UK I believe.

Would a retaliatory strike need to be overwhelming - huge bombing/missile raids to get NK to back down? Or might the rest of the world cave if NK really started up, and send them Happy Meals and barrels of oil to get them to go away?

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 07:27 AM

The US isn't over stretched to wage a military campaign against North Korea. We have 80,000 Army personnal between S. Korea and Japan, we have our Flag Ship Fleet in the 7th Fleet, our Largest forward-deployed fleet in the Navy. The military personnal presence is by and large moot as it would be retarded to do a ground invasion of North Korea, in a conflict with them we would hold at the DMZ and push buttons (i.e. lots of missles and bombs).

Your question posed is a little weird in its wording, if NK took "a few shots"? I'm sure no amount of aggression would be tolerated; the thing is though, if aggression is taken, I doubt it will be limited to a few shots as myself and others have alluded to Seoul being pounded to shit by NK artillery.

And yes the rest of the world would no doubt cave in this instance.

roachboy · 10-11-2006, 07:40 AM

i think that is bluster.
what can pyongyang really do militarily? any move it makes is going to bring all kinds of bad things down on its head and the dear leader knows beneath his bouffant that many elements in the international community would like to see him gone. except perhaps for south korea, which has long seemed to be more afraid of huge population migrations north to south than of the political consequences of pyongyang's actions.

what you are looking it, it seems to me, is a game of diplomatic chicken.

the problem for the international community--and not for the united states, which is not in a position to do very much except reciprocal saber rattling bluster---is simply how to stare down the dear leader in the short run, and how to legitimate the inevitable negociations that will follow.

mojo: so why is that that you roll so immediately toward pushing buttons?
is it because you are fairly sure that it will be only other people who are affected? or do you just want to see better resolution picture than this:

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...-romeo2-ex.jpg

Lady Sage · 10-11-2006, 08:18 AM

This just in...

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea stoked regional tensions Wednesday, threatening more nuclear tests and saying additional sanctions imposed on it would be considered an act of war, as nervous neighbors raced to bolster defenses and punish Pyongyang.

South Korea said it was making sure its troops were prepared for atomic warfare, and Japan imposed new economic sanctions to hit the economic lifeline of the communist nation's 1 million-member military, the world's fifth-largest.

North Korea, in its first formal statement since Monday's claimed atomic bomb test, hailed the blast as a success and said attempts by the outside world to penalize North Korea with sanctions would be considered an act of war.

World War III here we come...

highthief · 10-11-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

The US isn't over stretched to wage a military campaign against North Korea. We have 80,000 Army personnal between S. Korea and Japan, we have our Flag Ship Fleet in the 7th Fleet, our Largest forward-deployed fleet in the Navy. The military personnal presence is by and large moot as it would be retarded to do a ground invasion of North Korea, in a conflict with them we would hold at the DMZ and push buttons (i.e. lots of missles and bombs).

Your question posed is a little weird in its wording, if NK took "a few shots"? I'm sure no amount of aggression would be tolerated; the thing is though, if aggression is taken, I doubt it will be limited to a few shots as myself and others have alluded to Seoul being pounded to shit by NK artillery.

And yes the rest of the world would no doubt cave in this instance.

Don't recall missiles and bombs getting Saddam in either war, or bin Laden, or any other number of leaders over the years. Ground battles are still required to win wars and more importantly, win the peace. And the US currently does not have the resources to go in on the ground. The NK army is huge - they are not as technologically advanced as the US - but the US will require more troops than are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan to get the job done against them. And unless you've got an extra quarter million troops currently available ...

Undistracted by Iraq, Afghanistan, and other situations, there is no doubt the US would win, but that is not the situation.

I think the only potential difference to the US invading NK instead of Iraq is that NK is pretty isolated. I don't see waves of Pakistani or Saudi or Irani fighters coming over the hill to support NK or to fill the void once the current NK government is deposed. SK would be involved in a big way too, in winning the peace.

dc_dux · 10-11-2006, 08:48 AM

I agree with Roach....I think its typical NK bluster and a game of diplomatic chicken, taken to the extreme, but very unlikely to cross the line. Kim is a madman, but not an ideological martyr.

Our best stratagy, IMO, is to find a way to get the top NK generals to take Lil Kim out. While they are hard core communists and would likely be as oppressive on the people, at least in the short run, from what little I know of them, they are more grounded in reality and far more likely to look for a solution that all sides could accept.

rockogre · 10-11-2006, 08:58 AM

It's interesting and somewhat sad that some of you are now living in what was a childhood reality for many of us senior members. The threat of thermo-nuclear war now hangs over us as it did during my childhood. The fact that it never happened does not mean that we didn't learn and prepare for such an event.

I had hoped that the world would progress to a point to where this would never be something that had to be prepared for in grade schools, but it looks as if my hopes were for nothing. Lets all hope that once again, we prepare for something that never happens.

And, lets hope that they do develop a clean energy source that's only byproduct is a calorie free form of chocolate.

Godzilla, where are you now that we need you again?

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 09:00 AM

Why again would we need a ground invasion? In the aftermath of North Korean aggression, we would only seek to neutralize the threat, all that would consist of is destroying their nuclear and military facilities/capabilities. No doubt the international world would allow for military action, but being from the UN any resolution would be half assed, pack no bite, and would in no way shape or form allow for regime change/occupation. Since North Korea really has no captial for our country to gain there would be no need of invasion or occupation, besides the South Koreans have a military and it is their conflict, we can't be expected to pull all the weight. As far as NK's military, I don't know how ready and willing to die they would be, I reckon the people are pretty dejected there, all it would take is enough shake up of Kim Jong for his grip to break and they would have massive internal problems.

Jinn · 10-11-2006, 09:10 AM

No offense intended, but I don't think you'd be a very effective military strategist. A ground force is absolutely essential, even if you claim they have no 'capital' to be gained. I think you've grossly underestimated the power needed to wage a "war," especially one against an armed military. Even Desert Storm had Desert Sabre.

jorgelito · 10-11-2006, 09:16 AM

North Korea regularly takes a "few shots" at South Korea and China. Their soldiers either skirmish with border soldiers or in the case of China, downright raid the border towns and shoot up the place.

It's amazing to me how much patience the world community, especially China and SK have for NKs shenanigans. This is called enabling. Lil Kim isn't just playing diplomatic chicken (which he is winning), he is going as far as he is can get away with. Lil Kim's bluster has real consequences. He routinely crosses the line and the world just redraws it.

It's gonna come down to some kind of head. China will have to finally reveal what cards they have and we'll see just how much influence they have.

In temrs of succession, the generals are all loyal to Kim's father. There are three sons: one who is totally retarded, another is a bastard and considered incompetent and the one slated for succession is a real loony toon. He is considered to be more hardline and "cruel" than his father so the next regime does not bode well.

It's truly sad that we have so little intel on them. Our own irrational fear of our Asian American population has stalled any development and cultivation of assets in NK, China, and the Middle East.

Diplomacy has to be backed up by credible threats of action (military or otherwise) in order to work. Kim has the upperhand, he calls the bluff everytime and now Iran will also.

Rockogre, Godzilla has not posted in awhile. He may be on hiatus, send him a PM or something. Actually a lot of people haven't posted in awhile too.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

No offense intended, but I don't think you'd be a very effective military strategist. A ground force is absolutely essential, even if you claim they have no 'capital' to be gained. I think you've grossly underestimated the power needed to wage a "war," especially one against an armed military. Even Desert Storm had Desert Sabre.

I'm not trying to wage war with them, that's the point. I don't need to send in ground troops to render the vast majority of their programs and capabilities ineffective or destroyed.

roachboy · 10-11-2006, 09:24 AM

"We were compelled to prove that we have nuclear weapons to prevent the increasing threat of war by the US and protect our sovereignty and survival," the statement added, saying the country was "ready for both dialogue and confrontation".

this is from today's nk statement.
there is a way out...

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 09:29 AM

Dialogue right? What would that consist of? Them not surrendering their nukes or programs. Them attempting to get oil and supplies into the country, and no doubt all sanctions removed. What would that accomplish?

Willravel · 10-11-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Dialogue right? What would that consist of? Them not surrendering their nukes or programs. Them attempting to get oil and supplies into the country, and no doubt all sanctions removed. What would that accomplish?

Is a stray dog more dangerous hungry or full?

jorgelito · 10-11-2006, 10:12 AM

It's a tough call - could be appeasement

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 10:15 AM

Could be? We already did this dance with them once, now we find ourselves here.

Also this isn't a stray dog, this is a rabid dog. What did Atticus do to the dog when it happened on Scout and Jeb?

ratbastid · 10-11-2006, 10:17 AM

What I want to know is why Bill Clinton didn't do more to prevent this!

(Tilted Politics newbies: that's what-cha call "sarcasm".)

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 10:26 AM

Well actually Rat...

Clinton got the North Koreans to "agree" to the "agreed framework". What it really was, was more blackmail and deceit then anything. As North Korea violated the terms of the agreement and Clinton keep the aid spigot flowing.

Quote:

At Issue: What is the history of the now-broken nuclear non-proliferation agreement with North Korea known as the Agreed Framework and what has its failure cost the United States?

Background: On Oct. 16, 2002 North Korean government officials admitted their country had secretly continued development of nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 non-proliferation agreement with the United States.

Coming from a nation identified, along with Iraq and Iran, as a member of terrorism's Axis of Evil, North Korea's nuclear weapons confession threatened peace in the Korean peninsula and complicated matters for a Bush administration, already planning a war against Iraq.

Fearing that immediate U.S. military action might prompt North Korea to attack South Korea, currently home to some 37,000 U.S. troops, the White House expressed hopes that diplomatic efforts would be sufficient to convince the North Koreans to ''comply with its commitments . . . and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner."

It was, however, well-intentioned "diplomatic efforts" by the Clinton administration that failed in the first place. That piece of 1994 diplomacy was known as the "Agreed Framework."

North Korea's Nuclear Past
Lacking its own supplies of traditional energy resources like oil or coal, North Korea turned to nuclear power generation and by the mid-1980s, had at least four nuclear power complexes in operation. However, North Korea's reactors, built with the assistance of China and the Soviet Union, were disclosed to be "graphite-moderated" reactors, a type capable of producing weapons grade plutonium.

This fact spurred the interest of U.S. intelligence forces who determined that North Korea's largest nuclear facility at Yongbyon, along with three smaller facilities, were indeed producing plutonium. By 1985 U.S. defense experts estimated that the newly discovered North Korean nuclear program had already generated enough plutonium for two nuclear weapons and was poised to rapidly expand production. In addition, intelligence showed the N. Koreans to be quickly developing their ballistic missile weapons delivery systems. U.S. defense officials determined a N. Korean nuclear arsenal would create the following threats:

* Direct threat to South Korea and U.S. forces stationed there
* Possibility of igniting a nuclear arms race throughout Asia
* Would compromise enforceability of all international nuclear arms control treaties
* N. Korea could export its weapons technology to other terrorist states and organizations
* With improved missile systems, N. Korea could threaten all of Northeast Asia

Diplomacy and Deception: 'A sea of fire'
From 1985 to 1992, N. Korea "bought time" for its nuclear weapons program by entering into a series of international diplomatic agreements under which it promised to "deweaponize" its reactors and halt further production of plutonium.

By 1994, however, N. Korea had violated the terms of most of the non-proliferation agreements and simply withdrawn from the rest. By refusing in 1993 to disclose to international arms control agencies how much plutonium it had produced, N. Korea virtually admitted that its nuclear weapons program had continued unchecked.

When in June of 1994 the Unites States, S. Korea and several allied nations succeeded in getting the U.N. Security Council to evoke sanctions against them, the N. Koreans declared the sanctions an "act of war" and threatened to turn South Korea into "a sea of fire."

Clinton Negotiates the 'Agreed Framework'
Believing a diplomatic solution still possible, former President Clinton forged an agreement with N. Korean President Kim Il-sung that the North would temporarily halt its nuclear weapons program and return to non-proliferation negotiations in Geneva. The now-violated agreement, signed on Oct. 21, 1994 became known as the "Agreed Framework."

Key components of the 1994 Agreed Framework included:

* The U.S. and N. Korea would cooperate in fully replacing N. Korea's graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactors (not capable of plutonium production) by 2003. Graphite-moderated reactors were to be shut down until converted.

* To offset energy lost due to the powering down of N. Korea's graphite-moderated reactors, the United States agreed to supply N. Korea with up to 500,000 tons of heavy oil for heating and electricity production annually, until all reactors had been converted.

* N. Korea agreed to return to compliance with all international nuclear non-proliferation agreements and to eventually stabilize, store and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel already produced.

* Both the U.S. and N. Korea would work to achieve full normalization of political and economic relations.

A Broken Framework
As we now know, North Korea failed to uphold its end of the Agreed Framework. Appearing October 20 on NBC's "Meet the Press," Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, "When we told North Korea that we knew what they were doing, they came back the next day, admitted it, blamed us for their actions and then said they considered that agreement nullified."

Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), the Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was not quite so reserved when he stated, "At long last, the truth has come out. North Korea has admitted that the Agreed Framework negotiated by the Clinton Administration is a falsehood."

"The bottom line is that North Korea was out of compliance with its international obligations in 1994 when the Agreed Framework was signed; it remained out of compliance throughout the implementation of the Framework; and it is today out of compliance with its international obligations," said Helms.

Further U.S. Aid to North Korea
In addition to the oil supplied under the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States, as early as 1997, began sending North Korea food medicine and other forms of humanitarian aid.

The contributions of U.S. humanitarian aid to N. Korea began in 1997, in response to an appeal from the United Nations World Food Program. Unprecedented flooding during 1995 and 1996 had wiped out much of N. Korea's farm land, resulting in chronic food production shortfalls and widespread malnutrition.

U.S. defense analysts, viewing the rapidly declining economic stability and impending starvation in N. Korea as a threat to peace in the region, recommended continuation of the humanitarian aid program. Ironically, defense planners also reasoned that the aid would help "buy" N. Korea's compliance with terms of the Agreed Framework.

By 2000, the United States contribution of food and other forms of humanitarian aid to North Korea had amounted to over $61 million.

Needless to say, North Korea's admission of its continued development of nuclear weapons in direct violation of the Agreed Framework, may bring an end to the flow of U.S. humanitarian and economic aid. When asked about the possibility of ending aid to N. Korea, Secretary of State Powell responded, "We are now looking at what should be the consequences of their [North Korea's] action and we will act, step by step, after we have had a chance to fully consult with our friends and allies."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aankorea.htm

Willravel · 10-11-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Also this isn't a stray dog, this is a rabid dog. What did Atticus do to the dog when it happened on Scout and Jeb?

The stray dog analogy suggests that the animal doesn't have to necessarily be put down yet. North Korea is not beyond the point of hope yet, therefore the rabid dog analogy isn't apt.

roachboy · 10-11-2006, 12:32 PM

i am really not interested in the inter-party whose fault is this game.
what is sure however is at least there was an agreement under the previous administration--and under this one, you get an all too typical bushworld period of tedious saber rattling and hysteria amongst the populace. as for which approach works better--well the implementation of the agreed upon agreement is in the realm of speculation, so you dont know--but you DO know that there was no nk nuclear device under the previous administration, and if you add things up, maybe counting on your fingers, at least some results are possible.

despite the bouffant, the dog analogies are not good with reference to the dear leader.
the dear leader is in quite a fix.
the dear leader wants nk to be understood as amongst the Huge Nuclear Penis Club because it is a symbol of being a Major Player in the world.
it seems that the dear leader rather likes the idea of being a Major Player in the world.
the bush people, who apparently are beset with size issues (this imagery is growing tiresome, but i find myself typing it anyway), have set up this idiotic situation from the moment they decided to declare the dear leader and nk to be part of their hallucinatory "axis of evil" and embarked thereafter on a relationship predicated on making the dear leader crawl and threatening some kind of threatening threat of a threatened response if he didnt.

now the dear leader now has some tiny, strange nuclear device of unclear capacity and of unclear functionality and a delivery system that threatens areas a few miles off the coast of the dear leader's land and not much else---because the tests resulted in the delivery missle crashing into the sea of japan, you see.

but they operate as bargaining chips and those chips are being played now and the game he is playing is pretty obvious if you think about it, if you read about it, but the outcomes are less so. but most analyses that i have read go back again and again to the point i too have been going back to again and again here, which is that the dear leader would settle for bilateral negociations with the united states, which would be simple enough to undertake were the bush people not such nimrods.

so now there is this "crisis" and the right is quite sure that nuking nk is the only answer, or bombing the shit out of nk is the only answer and this only because-ONLY because--the discourse of the bush administration makes no other option seem feasible.

to go back to the opening paragraph: which is better, the agreed upon agreement or the current threatening threats of future threats.
i dunno about you, but i prefer the agreed upon agreement.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 02:21 PM

Roach for their to be an agreement, wouldn't one party have to abide by it? NK didn't building off that, yes there was no nuclear device when the "last administration" was in office, they just managed to speed up and go about with their programs. I really don't see where Bush is "saber rattling" either, I mean seriously, name any instances where Bush or his administration has said anything that is "Saber rattling". Does staying committed to multi-lateral talks equate to saber rattling? Does not legitimizing NK with bi-lateral talks equate saber rattling? Do statements to the effect of we are not now, nor have we ever had the intentions of attacking North Korea? Tell me how Bush is the bad guy by not legitimizing or propping up a failed nation state such as North Korea? Clinton did both, his policy failed. When Bush stuck to the agreement signed, NK started getting pissy and threw a tantrum and here people such as you RB want to appease them, typical.

Bi-lateral talks amount to nothing, it is only another attempt to black mail the US, something which we shouldn't tolerate, again. It would also legitimize Kim Jong Il and his actions. "Oh yes little Kim you can do what ever you want, don't abide by your agreements, in fact come here to the grown table and sit and talk with us". One ought to approach the situation with the mentality of parents and a spoiled brat. If your kid is an ass and cussing you out and not obeying curfew, and doing drugs, and punting puppies while committing hate crimes, do you really try and talk to them at a level/manner where there behavior is legitimized and not addressed? No, you crack their ass if you have, or hell give them the good ole' 86 and let them fend for themselves if it comes down to it. Besides I would think bringing in regional nations that have some stake in south east Asia might be nice, as NK is also their problem.

Back to the opening paragraph, on what is better the agreed upon agreement, or our current state of threats to a nation in gross violation of international and unprecedented saber rattling. Well again I state NK would actually have to be party to an agreement, and would actually have to follow it. They did not follow the agreement, as such when Bush cut them off, they pulled out of the agreement, there is no framework in that sense to work with.

Ch'i · 10-11-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the dear leader is in quite a fix.
the dear leader wants nk to be understood as amongst the Huge Nuclear Penis Club because it is a symbol of being a Major Player in the world.

Nailed it.

I'm still not sure as to why the US would get involved. I know we're experienced at nuking other countries, but its not the US that's being threatened; its not our dog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

mojo: so why is that that you roll so immediately toward pushing buttons?
is it because you are fairly sure that it will be only other people who are affected? or do you just want to see better resolution picture than this:
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...-romeo2-ex.jpg

Your on a roll today roachboy.

If NK is forced to disarm, so should every other nuclear armed country.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 03:11 PM

A comment such as that Ch'i is like stating since Criminals can't have guns, neither can law abiding citizens. Go-go disarmament!

Ch'i · 10-11-2006, 03:15 PM

Not really. Criminals aren't sovereign, they are part of a set system since they are citizens of a country. Unless you want to argue that the US is a hegemon of the world.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-11-2006, 03:24 PM

It is held as an intrinsic (that's the word right?) right for us to bear arms, by comparison, a person would be sovereign in that sense.

Willravel · 10-11-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It is held as an intrinsic (that's the word right?) right for us to bear arms, by comparison, a person would be sovereign in that sense.

The police enforce the laws of a soverign state, and anyone living in that state are subject to those laws. The police are charged with enforcing those laws. The same is not true of the US vs. NK. North Korea did break some rules, but the US is not acting in any official or legal role of world police, so we are not justified in attacking whoever we want. Why do you think so many people were pissed aobut the US attacking Iraq after it came out that there were no al Quaeda links or WMDs? Saddam was still a murderous bastard, but he was no threat to the US, and we had no right in removing him from power. We attacked a soverign state without provocation, like me hitting my neighbor with a baseball bat because I thought he was out to get me (without proof).

stevie667 · 10-12-2006, 08:31 AM

Send in team america.

stevo · 10-12-2006, 12:02 PM

Mojo,

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the bush people...have set up this idiotic situation from the moment they decided to declare the dear leader and nk to be part of their hallucinatory "axis of evil".

add this to his statement equating americas problem with islamofascists to that of a fight between a child's teddybears and you see why its pointless to argue with people who don't believe there are any problems except those caused by bushco itself.

According to the far left in this country there is no such thing as an islamofascist and the problem with the north korean issue is bushco's "cowboy diplomacy."

Infinite_Loser · 10-12-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

Send in team america.

I second that notion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

If NK is forced to disarm, so should every other nuclear armed country.

How do you figure?

Ch'i · 10-12-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

How do you figure?

China has nukes, the US has nukes, and Russia has nukes. Don't you see the hypocrisy in any of these countries telling another to disarm?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667
Send in team america.

I second that notion.

How do you figure?

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-12-2006, 01:30 PM

They kill terrorists, duh.

Seaver · 10-12-2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

China has nukes, the US has nukes, and Russia has nukes. Don't you see the hypocrisy in any of these countries telling another to disarm?

I have a gun, my neighbor has guns, does not mean I want the psycho wearing a clownsuit claiming the spiders are crawling inside his skin to have a gun.

Ustwo · 10-12-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

China has nukes, the US has nukes, and Russia has nukes. Don't you see the hypocrisy in any of these countries telling another to disarm?

This isn't a game of dodge ball where we all should play fair and nice and have good fun for all. I think the biggest liberal mindset mistake is 'playing fair'. I play fair when I play a board game, I play fair when I play a computer game, but when it comes to war and your peoples well being you don't play fair.

Whenever someone says 'its not fair' and its about international politics, they just showed why they shouldn't have a say.

Ch'i · 10-12-2006, 02:18 PM

Your right Ustwo.

The US needs to redeploy into North Korea. Target all military installations, and preform a strike on their leadership starting with the military. Send in troops to occupy the capitol, and bunker it down with proper defenses. Have Kim Jong-il sign a treaty, then have him mysteriously "disappear" to a secret prison somewhere in Micronesia. Pull out of Iraq. Once all troops and civilians are evacuated, bomb Iraq entirely and let Israel have the remains. Send out a press release on Iran "threatening the US with nuclear war."Then continue the fight into Iran, and setup bases in NK under the pretense of "keeping the peace"; that way we have some footholds against China in the future, along with a new stock of oil reserves.

Edit: We should also take out NK's banks, and financial reserves in the initial strike to cripple their self sufficiency.

Sure is easy when you don't give a shit about other people, aye Ustwo?

stevie667 · 10-12-2006, 02:24 PM

And pick up a gallon of milk and some crisps whilst your at it.

Intense1 · 10-12-2006, 04:35 PM

I've read all the posts and have been struck by all of them - some, in my heart with a "Yep, dang, that's true" and some upside my head with a "what the heck? What planet are they on?", but I'd like to try to see if I can boil some stuff down.

1. Bi-lateral talks and agreements with NK and Kimlet do not work - Madame Albright went over and talked and signed with great pomp and circumstance and a butt-load of hoopla, yet we discovered 3-4 years ago that Kimlet's folks signed while keeping their fingers crossed behind their backs. They never intended to follow through, just to get the US off their back and give them their allotment of rice and veggies and that afore mentioned side of beef.

2. Since point 1 is true, the current admin decided to pull into the equation the countries most affected by NK and its shenanigans - China, Japan, SK and Russia, to see how this might work. Kimlet balked and got busy with the enrichment program, since his little plan to blackmail everyone for food to feed his starving countrymen had been thwarted.

3. And now Kimlet has claimed to have successfully tested a nuke, in order to get back his place of power in order to re-establish his blackmail-ability. He has no desire to use it against anyone, just to have leverage for blackmail purposes.

4. China, in the last few days, was livid, and expressing itself in stronger than ever terms, using language they never had before in condemning Kimlet and his nuke escapades, even threatening to cut off all aid, including food. Everyone has been crying "foul", but now the retoric is easing a bit.

5. Kofi and the UN (great name for a rock band, I think) say that the US should do the bi-lateral talks..... gosh, talk about your "no creativity" UN! Been there, done that, Kof', it didn't work.

Now the question is this: do we want to encourage this continued blackmail? Maybe before it would have been acceptable, we'll just shake our heads and quip, "Oh, Kimlet, you little minx!" and fork over the food and bucks so those poor people can have at least one meal a day. Oh, but now the stakes have changed, and we're being threatened by a, what was it, "neighbor in a clown-suit waving a gun while claiming he has spiders crawling all over him".

Do we stand up to blackmail, or don't we? I say we can, unless nukes are involved. Now it's a regional threat, possibly a US threat, if Kimlet can get his Taepodong II's to ever go further than the corner gas station in NK.

Six-way talks are the only option, I say, and if Kimlet won't agree, then do we starve his population further? It's evident by his looks that he is packing away the groceries, so no harm to him.

What a sad day for the Kim family, that his father who was once so revered throughout Korea for his guerilla warfare tactics against the Japanese when they occupied Korea way back when, to have their family name come to such dishonor in the world, especially in Asia.

Spare the rod, spoil the child, I say. He should have been spanked as a kid, maybe we wouldn't be facing this......

highthief · 10-16-2006, 08:53 AM

Seems like the nuclear test has been confirmed, though it was obviously a partial failure given the low yield. Nevertheless, it does indeed appear that NK has nukes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tm?POE=NEWISVA

WASHINGTON (AP) — Air samples gathered last week contain radioactive materials that confirm that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte's office said Monday.
In a short statement posted on its website, Negroponte's office also confirmed that the size of the explosion was less than 1 kiloton, a comparatively small nuclear explosion. Each kiloton is equal to the force produced by 1,000 tons of TNT.

ON DEADLINE: Read the statement

"Analysis of air samples collected on October 11, 2006, detected radioactive debris which confirms that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion in the vicinity of P'unggye on October 9, 2006," the statement said.

10-11-2006, 07:13 AM	#81 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I wonder what would happen if NK took a few shots at SK or Japan. Does anyone have the stomach or means to wage a war against NK, other than perhaps China? The US is overstretched as it stands, as is the UK I believe. Would a retaliatory strike need to be overwhelming - huge bombing/missile raids to get NK to back down? Or might the rest of the world cave if NK really started up, and send them Happy Meals and barrels of oil to get them to go away? __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

10-11-2006, 07:27 AM	#82 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The US isn't over stretched to wage a military campaign against North Korea. We have 80,000 Army personnal between S. Korea and Japan, we have our Flag Ship Fleet in the 7th Fleet, our Largest forward-deployed fleet in the Navy. The military personnal presence is by and large moot as it would be retarded to do a ground invasion of North Korea, in a conflict with them we would hold at the DMZ and push buttons (i.e. lots of missles and bombs). Your question posed is a little weird in its wording, if NK took "a few shots"? I'm sure no amount of aggression would be tolerated; the thing is though, if aggression is taken, I doubt it will be limited to a few shots as myself and others have alluded to Seoul being pounded to shit by NK artillery. And yes the rest of the world would no doubt cave in this instance. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-11-2006, 07:40 AM	#83 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think that is bluster. what can pyongyang really do militarily? any move it makes is going to bring all kinds of bad things down on its head and the dear leader knows beneath his bouffant that many elements in the international community would like to see him gone. except perhaps for south korea, which has long seemed to be more afraid of huge population migrations north to south than of the political consequences of pyongyang's actions. what you are looking it, it seems to me, is a game of diplomatic chicken. the problem for the international community--and not for the united states, which is not in a position to do very much except reciprocal saber rattling bluster---is simply how to stare down the dear leader in the short run, and how to legitimate the inevitable negociations that will follow. mojo: so why is that that you roll so immediately toward pushing buttons? is it because you are fairly sure that it will be only other people who are affected? or do you just want to see better resolution picture than this: http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/...-romeo2-ex.jpg __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-11-2006, 08:18 AM	#84 (permalink)
Lady Sage Mistress of Mayhem Location: Canton, Ohio	This just in... SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea stoked regional tensions Wednesday, threatening more nuclear tests and saying additional sanctions imposed on it would be considered an act of war, as nervous neighbors raced to bolster defenses and punish Pyongyang. South Korea said it was making sure its troops were prepared for atomic warfare, and Japan imposed new economic sanctions to hit the economic lifeline of the communist nation's 1 million-member military, the world's fifth-largest. North Korea, in its first formal statement since Monday's claimed atomic bomb test, hailed the blast as a success and said attempts by the outside world to penalize North Korea with sanctions would be considered an act of war. World War III here we come... __________________ If only closed minds came with closed mouths. Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open. It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

10-11-2006, 08:48 AM	#86 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I agree with Roach....I think its typical NK bluster and a game of diplomatic chicken, taken to the extreme, but very unlikely to cross the line. Kim is a madman, but not an ideological martyr. Our best stratagy, IMO, is to find a way to get the top NK generals to take Lil Kim out. While they are hard core communists and would likely be as oppressive on the people, at least in the short run, from what little I know of them, they are more grounded in reality and far more likely to look for a solution that all sides could accept. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-11-2006, 08:58 AM	#87 (permalink)
rockogre I aim to misbehave! Location: SW Oklahoma	It's interesting and somewhat sad that some of you are now living in what was a childhood reality for many of us senior members. The threat of thermo-nuclear war now hangs over us as it did during my childhood. The fact that it never happened does not mean that we didn't learn and prepare for such an event. I had hoped that the world would progress to a point to where this would never be something that had to be prepared for in grade schools, but it looks as if my hopes were for nothing. Lets all hope that once again, we prepare for something that never happens. And, lets hope that they do develop a clean energy source that's only byproduct is a calorie free form of chocolate. Godzilla, where are you now that we need you again? __________________ Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G. I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

10-11-2006, 09:00 AM	#88 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Why again would we need a ground invasion? In the aftermath of North Korean aggression, we would only seek to neutralize the threat, all that would consist of is destroying their nuclear and military facilities/capabilities. No doubt the international world would allow for military action, but being from the UN any resolution would be half assed, pack no bite, and would in no way shape or form allow for regime change/occupation. Since North Korea really has no captial for our country to gain there would be no need of invasion or occupation, besides the South Koreans have a military and it is their conflict, we can't be expected to pull all the weight. As far as NK's military, I don't know how ready and willing to die they would be, I reckon the people are pretty dejected there, all it would take is enough shake up of Kim Jong for his grip to break and they would have massive internal problems. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-11-2006, 09:10 AM	#89 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	No offense intended, but I don't think you'd be a very effective military strategist. A ground force is absolutely essential, even if you claim they have no 'capital' to be gained. I think you've grossly underestimated the power needed to wage a "war," especially one against an armed military. Even Desert Storm had Desert Sabre. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-11-2006, 09:16 AM	#90 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	North Korea regularly takes a "few shots" at South Korea and China. Their soldiers either skirmish with border soldiers or in the case of China, downright raid the border towns and shoot up the place. It's amazing to me how much patience the world community, especially China and SK have for NKs shenanigans. This is called enabling. Lil Kim isn't just playing diplomatic chicken (which he is winning), he is going as far as he is can get away with. Lil Kim's bluster has real consequences. He routinely crosses the line and the world just redraws it. It's gonna come down to some kind of head. China will have to finally reveal what cards they have and we'll see just how much influence they have. In temrs of succession, the generals are all loyal to Kim's father. There are three sons: one who is totally retarded, another is a bastard and considered incompetent and the one slated for succession is a real loony toon. He is considered to be more hardline and "cruel" than his father so the next regime does not bode well. It's truly sad that we have so little intel on them. Our own irrational fear of our Asian American population has stalled any development and cultivation of assets in NK, China, and the Middle East. Diplomacy has to be backed up by credible threats of action (military or otherwise) in order to work. Kim has the upperhand, he calls the bluff everytime and now Iran will also. Rockogre, Godzilla has not posted in awhile. He may be on hiatus, send him a PM or something. Actually a lot of people haven't posted in awhile too.

10-11-2006, 09:24 AM	#92 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	"We were compelled to prove that we have nuclear weapons to prevent the increasing threat of war by the US and protect our sovereignty and survival," the statement added, saying the country was "ready for both dialogue and confrontation". this is from today's nk statement. there is a way out... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-11-2006, 09:29 AM	#93 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Dialogue right? What would that consist of? Them not surrendering their nukes or programs. Them attempting to get oil and supplies into the country, and no doubt all sanctions removed. What would that accomplish? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-11-2006, 10:12 AM	#95 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	It's a tough call - could be appeasement

10-11-2006, 10:15 AM	#96 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Could be? We already did this dance with them once, now we find ourselves here. Also this isn't a stray dog, this is a rabid dog. What did Atticus do to the dog when it happened on Scout and Jeb? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-11-2006, 10:17 AM	#97 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	What I want to know is why Bill Clinton didn't do more to prevent this! (Tilted Politics newbies: that's what-cha call "sarcasm".)

10-11-2006, 12:32 PM	#100 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am really not interested in the inter-party whose fault is this game. what is sure however is at least there was an agreement under the previous administration--and under this one, you get an all too typical bushworld period of tedious saber rattling and hysteria amongst the populace. as for which approach works better--well the implementation of the agreed upon agreement is in the realm of speculation, so you dont know--but you DO know that there was no nk nuclear device under the previous administration, and if you add things up, maybe counting on your fingers, at least some results are possible. despite the bouffant, the dog analogies are not good with reference to the dear leader. the dear leader is in quite a fix. the dear leader wants nk to be understood as amongst the Huge Nuclear Penis Club because it is a symbol of being a Major Player in the world. it seems that the dear leader rather likes the idea of being a Major Player in the world. the bush people, who apparently are beset with size issues (this imagery is growing tiresome, but i find myself typing it anyway), have set up this idiotic situation from the moment they decided to declare the dear leader and nk to be part of their hallucinatory "axis of evil" and embarked thereafter on a relationship predicated on making the dear leader crawl and threatening some kind of threatening threat of a threatened response if he didnt. now the dear leader now has some tiny, strange nuclear device of unclear capacity and of unclear functionality and a delivery system that threatens areas a few miles off the coast of the dear leader's land and not much else---because the tests resulted in the delivery missle crashing into the sea of japan, you see. but they operate as bargaining chips and those chips are being played now and the game he is playing is pretty obvious if you think about it, if you read about it, but the outcomes are less so. but most analyses that i have read go back again and again to the point i too have been going back to again and again here, which is that the dear leader would settle for bilateral negociations with the united states, which would be simple enough to undertake were the bush people not such nimrods. so now there is this "crisis" and the right is quite sure that nuking nk is the only answer, or bombing the shit out of nk is the only answer and this only because-ONLY because--the discourse of the bush administration makes no other option seem feasible. to go back to the opening paragraph: which is better, the agreed upon agreement or the current threatening threats of future threats. i dunno about you, but i prefer the agreed upon agreement. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-11-2006, 02:21 PM	#101 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Roach for their to be an agreement, wouldn't one party have to abide by it? NK didn't building off that, yes there was no nuclear device when the "last administration" was in office, they just managed to speed up and go about with their programs. I really don't see where Bush is "saber rattling" either, I mean seriously, name any instances where Bush or his administration has said anything that is "Saber rattling". Does staying committed to multi-lateral talks equate to saber rattling? Does not legitimizing NK with bi-lateral talks equate saber rattling? Do statements to the effect of we are not now, nor have we ever had the intentions of attacking North Korea? Tell me how Bush is the bad guy by not legitimizing or propping up a failed nation state such as North Korea? Clinton did both, his policy failed. When Bush stuck to the agreement signed, NK started getting pissy and threw a tantrum and here people such as you RB want to appease them, typical. Bi-lateral talks amount to nothing, it is only another attempt to black mail the US, something which we shouldn't tolerate, again. It would also legitimize Kim Jong Il and his actions. "Oh yes little Kim you can do what ever you want, don't abide by your agreements, in fact come here to the grown table and sit and talk with us". One ought to approach the situation with the mentality of parents and a spoiled brat. If your kid is an ass and cussing you out and not obeying curfew, and doing drugs, and punting puppies while committing hate crimes, do you really try and talk to them at a level/manner where there behavior is legitimized and not addressed? No, you crack their ass if you have, or hell give them the good ole' 86 and let them fend for themselves if it comes down to it. Besides I would think bringing in regional nations that have some stake in south east Asia might be nice, as NK is also their problem. Back to the opening paragraph, on what is better the agreed upon agreement, or our current state of threats to a nation in gross violation of international and unprecedented saber rattling. Well again I state NK would actually have to be party to an agreement, and would actually have to follow it. They did not follow the agreement, as such when Bush cut them off, they pulled out of the agreement, there is no framework in that sense to work with. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-11-2006, 03:11 PM	#103 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	A comment such as that Ch'i is like stating since Criminals can't have guns, neither can law abiding citizens. Go-go disarmament! __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-11-2006, 03:15 PM	#104 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	Not really. Criminals aren't sovereign, they are part of a set system since they are citizens of a country. Unless you want to argue that the US is a hegemon of the world.

10-11-2006, 03:24 PM	#105 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It is held as an intrinsic (that's the word right?) right for us to bear arms, by comparison, a person would be sovereign in that sense. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-12-2006, 08:31 AM	#107 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	Send in team america. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

10-12-2006, 01:30 PM	#111 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	They kill terrorists, duh. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-12-2006, 02:18 PM	#114 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	Your right Ustwo. The US needs to redeploy into North Korea. Target all military installations, and preform a strike on their leadership starting with the military. Send in troops to occupy the capitol, and bunker it down with proper defenses. Have Kim Jong-il sign a treaty, then have him mysteriously "disappear" to a secret prison somewhere in Micronesia. Pull out of Iraq. Once all troops and civilians are evacuated, bomb Iraq entirely and let Israel have the remains. Send out a press release on Iran "threatening the US with nuclear war."Then continue the fight into Iran, and setup bases in NK under the pretense of "keeping the peace"; that way we have some footholds against China in the future, along with a new stock of oil reserves. Edit: We should also take out NK's banks, and financial reserves in the initial strike to cripple their self sufficiency. Sure is easy when you don't give a shit about other people, aye Ustwo? Last edited by Ch'i; 10-12-2006 at 02:30 PM..

10-12-2006, 02:24 PM	#115 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	And pick up a gallon of milk and some crisps whilst your at it. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

10-12-2006, 04:35 PM	#116 (permalink)
Intense1 Crazy Location: Music City burbs	I've read all the posts and have been struck by all of them - some, in my heart with a "Yep, dang, that's true" and some upside my head with a "what the heck? What planet are they on?", but I'd like to try to see if I can boil some stuff down. 1. Bi-lateral talks and agreements with NK and Kimlet do not work - Madame Albright went over and talked and signed with great pomp and circumstance and a butt-load of hoopla, yet we discovered 3-4 years ago that Kimlet's folks signed while keeping their fingers crossed behind their backs. They never intended to follow through, just to get the US off their back and give them their allotment of rice and veggies and that afore mentioned side of beef. 2. Since point 1 is true, the current admin decided to pull into the equation the countries most affected by NK and its shenanigans - China, Japan, SK and Russia, to see how this might work. Kimlet balked and got busy with the enrichment program, since his little plan to blackmail everyone for food to feed his starving countrymen had been thwarted. 3. And now Kimlet has claimed to have successfully tested a nuke, in order to get back his place of power in order to re-establish his blackmail-ability. He has no desire to use it against anyone, just to have leverage for blackmail purposes. 4. China, in the last few days, was livid, and expressing itself in stronger than ever terms, using language they never had before in condemning Kimlet and his nuke escapades, even threatening to cut off all aid, including food. Everyone has been crying "foul", but now the retoric is easing a bit. 5. Kofi and the UN (great name for a rock band, I think) say that the US should do the bi-lateral talks..... gosh, talk about your "no creativity" UN! Been there, done that, Kof', it didn't work. Now the question is this: do we want to encourage this continued blackmail? Maybe before it would have been acceptable, we'll just shake our heads and quip, "Oh, Kimlet, you little minx!" and fork over the food and bucks so those poor people can have at least one meal a day. Oh, but now the stakes have changed, and we're being threatened by a, what was it, "neighbor in a clown-suit waving a gun while claiming he has spiders crawling all over him". Do we stand up to blackmail, or don't we? I say we can, unless nukes are involved. Now it's a regional threat, possibly a US threat, if Kimlet can get his Taepodong II's to ever go further than the corner gas station in NK. Six-way talks are the only option, I say, and if Kimlet won't agree, then do we starve his population further? It's evident by his looks that he is packing away the groceries, so no harm to him. What a sad day for the Kim family, that his father who was once so revered throughout Korea for his guerilla warfare tactics against the Japanese when they occupied Korea way back when, to have their family name come to such dishonor in the world, especially in Asia. Spare the rod, spoil the child, I say. He should have been spanked as a kid, maybe we wouldn't be facing this...... __________________ (none yet, still thinkin') Last edited by Intense1; 10-12-2006 at 04:38 PM.. Reason: spelling

10-16-2006, 08:53 AM	#117 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Seems like the nuclear test has been confirmed, though it was obviously a partial failure given the low yield. Nevertheless, it does indeed appear that NK has nukes: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tm?POE=NEWISVA WASHINGTON (AP) — Air samples gathered last week contain radioactive materials that confirm that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte's office said Monday. In a short statement posted on its website, Negroponte's office also confirmed that the size of the explosion was less than 1 kiloton, a comparatively small nuclear explosion. Each kiloton is equal to the force produced by 1,000 tons of TNT. ON DEADLINE: Read the statement "Analysis of air samples collected on October 11, 2006, detected radioactive debris which confirms that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion in the vicinity of P'unggye on October 9, 2006," the statement said. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.