North Korea tests nuke
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6033457.stm
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/.../10/125_40.php (click the orange square for info)
A nuke anywhere from half a kiloton to 15 kilos is small by Cold War standards, but it's still a nuke test and once the technology is there the potential for constructing larger weapons is a lot higher and they will come quickly.

This is significant event, but I don't think that NK will be stupid enough to use nukes on neighbors. What concerns me is the economic fallout and the potential for North Korea to benefit from this. South Korea's stock market and currency experienced significant drops after this news came out, all the NK government has to do is light off another one, watch the market drop, invest in SK stock and currency through fake corporations, and get rich while being nice and calm and watching their investments grow (possibly to the point that they can survive an economic cutoff by China?)

edit:
They may test another one soon http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...KER-URGENT.XML

I am freaked the hell out about this. What concerns me even more than the thought of nuclear weaponry in the hands of N. Korea is the thought that all the smaller countries that have participated in the Non-Proliferation Treaty are now gonna be scared, and justifiably so, and everyone will feel justified to have their own nuclear arsenal. All it takes is one well-armed mad man...I only hope that China will come down hard on N. Korea (the leadership, not the people) (and how great is it to have to depend on China for anything, eh?).

I'm a bit confused. They claim they tested one. We can't confirm this? Did we turn off all the sensing equipment when the cold war was over? Did they really test this or do they just want more free food after another failed harvest?

Hell it might have just been a fuel air bomb. We need additional confirmation before we proceed.

Here's the earthquake information

It looks relatively confirmed to me.

Not sure how to handle the situation, personally.

why is this such a big deal? doesnt the US have more nukes than anyone? why would somone testing 1 nuke be bad? they are only defending themselves.

Mostly because they are crazy as rabid squirrels (the leadership of NK, that is). They are infinitely more dangerous than any number of Saddams, IMO.

Calm down people, they did this before and it turned out through seizmic (sp?) signatures to be just a really big bomb underground.

Nukes have a very tell-tale signature. First from the detonation of the detonation explosion, then the nuclear one. Lets just wait and see what teh analysis says before freaking out.

Wonder why no one thought of that before the Iarq invasion for those mythical WMDs?

:lol:

Let them test the bombs all they want in their country. They'll have to deal with all the radiation dispersed within their borders.

In truth, I'm more worried that Bush is going to make more stupid aggresive statements (yeah, let's piss them off...) and then send more US troops over to S. Korea and invade N. Korea while we're at it. Seems like it is just more of the same old reasons for our red neck cowboy prez to go where we aren't wanted & waste all our manpower, ie. US lives & billions on another trumped up military action.

We have nukes. So now they have nukes. It's a moot point in some ways...

We can have as many nukes as we want but no one else is allowed to? How does that work exactly?

I dont like the fact that anyone has nukes including ourselves, besides we dont use them anymore so why have them?

If we all just minded our own business like Canada.... who bothers Canada? We should learn by their example.

This is just the ramblings of a totally mad woman, pay no mind.

This is all going to end in tears for someone, probably the NK peasant population.

Yeah, I had thought of that as well. Where did they test it exactly and how many of their own people are going to have loads of fun (insert sarcasm here) reaping the benefits of nuclear fallout? Do they even care?

mutually assured destruction is sure to be the revived buzzword of the year if they begin stockpiling nukes

Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD, which, regrettably is what the policy is. Can fringe countries be looking to achieve nuclear power in order to achieve international bargaining power?

What does this have to do with Mark Foley touching little boys?

If a country the size of North Korea starts stockpiling nukes, I don't think MAD destruction will be the buzzword. It was with Russia because that was a literally half-the-world against half-the-world. Compare that to today - One country versus what, all the other countries? China is even against North Korea's "Hey, look at me's." If they use a nuke, it's not going to destroy all of humanity.

The real fear is NK selling nuclear weapons to any nation that will pay enough for them. Think Iran. Or any oil producing country. Or any country with a crackpot at the helm.

That's why this is a big deal. NK needs money, this is a quick way to get it. NK does not have a delivery system as of yet that can do much more than explode over the Sea of Japan. Sooner or later NK gets that fixed. But other countries have rockets capable of delivering a device to a potential adversary. Think Isreal.

This is a real threat to world peace.

Let Japan take this one. They have vested interest, they are at most risk, and they haven't botched a war in like 50 years. They have a capable military, and I seriously, seriously doubt China will back NK. China wants to roll with the fast and furious nations, reving their big engines and driving circles around everyone else, and NK just got a pinto. Japan's good people. They know what they have to do, and their troops are *gasp* actually trained for jungle comat! $5 says that they handle NK better than we handled Iraq.

Although they've never confirmed or denied it, Israel is generally believed to already have a nuclear arsenal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_...ss_destruction

... but the rest of your point is perfectly valid. Unfortunately.

Open message to George W. Bush, the CIA, the NSA, Rambo and Robocop:
Dudes, these guys "DO HAVE" Weapons of Mass Destruction.-

It's worse than that. North Korea needs cash, OBL et al have lots of cash. The real threat is North Korea selling weapons (nuclear etc) to non-state actors like terrorist organizations or non-rogue states.

There is precedent, NK has been caught before (ship) trying to export weapons to Syria etc. Luckily we caught them else the Lebanon eperience may have turned out quite differently, like-wise Iraq (think insurgents crossing into Iraq from Syria). EX: an IED that is nuclear goes off in Iraq.

MAD is no longer applicable in the post 9/11 world order (in my opinion). NK is in an assymetrical relationship vis-a-vis the other parties. basically, none of the parties are willing to pay the price in acceptable losses to resolve the NK situation while NK has nothing to lose and can hold everyone hostage to its demands. Especially in a regime like Kim's there is no inherent built in self-preservation device that MAD operates on. I personally think NK is "suicidal", if anything, they are playing a game of chicken.

Willravel is totally correct IMO. Yes, let Japan field this upcoming battle (of words we hope/desire - not weapons) It's in their neighborhood and they do still have the upper hand in technology & sanctions - not us as some hope and thought. The Japanese ARE good people in my mind, in that they know that threats are wasted upon major players world wide. In fact, wouldn't it be great to share the responsibility of "keeping the world" safe with players such as China & Japan. That would be a smart move politically for our leaders to date.

We need the Asians as much as they need us in the USA. BTW - Our stockmarkets ARE joined at the hip in so many ways. It's almost scary if one isn't diversified enough to roll with all these punches.

Chemical/Biological weapons are vastly different than nuclear.

It was an underground test, there's no fallout. However, if not done right it could irradiate some of the water supply.

Yup, NK is starving, Their position is such that trading a nuke for a barrel of oil and a side of beef looks good.

Personally, I think the bigger danger is to Japan or South Korea. The north leadership is genuinely bonkers, IMO. I could see them thinking that going out in "a blaze of glory" would be a fitting demise, so long as they took SK or Japan with them.

You know who this is an opportunity for? Russia. Russia goes in, wipes NK from the face of the earth, and suddenly Russia goes from memories of the USSR to genuine superpower again, overnight.

Your point being ...?

It would be an asbolutely inspired move, but they are just as distractred by their war on terror as we are. You should see their news, it's all about Chechnian rebels and bombings and such. It's the same as our stufff with Iraq. Besides, Russia hasn't made a smart military move in decades.

My vote is still for Japan. The little island(s) that could.

I'm under the impression that Japan still does not have an army due to the WWII treaty. They have a very small air force and navy, but I remember reading that they are not allowed an army.

Maybe France and Germany could help out too!

Japan moving militarily would be disastrous. Not until they have resolved their differences with their neighbors. In fact, Japan is probably the worst party to be involved in a Korean dispute. No way the Koreans will listen the Japanese, it's like throwing gas on a fire.

Russia is useless. No way they could make a move on N K. Their poor excuse for a military would take heavy losses deemed unacceptable.

I too think that NK is capable of doing the "going down in a blaze of glory and trying to take out as many people as possible". It's too bad how little we know of them.

Best moves? In my opinion, S Korea should move the capital all the way south the seaside (at least out of range of the 10,000s artillery now aimed at Seoul. Stop playing games with the North and hold them accountable. US military out except for advisors and similar personel.

China lacks will power and fear the collapse of the NK. But NK is making China their bitch right now, how can anyone respect that? China prefere the status quo and not rock the boat. They mostly want to protect their economy more than anything else. A war on their hands is not something they want. On the other hand, if they took a prominent role in the handling of the Korean mess, they could come out looking good and the Chinese leaders like that.

If it came down to conflict: China should definitely put the smack down (if it even can). Demand help from the UN to help with the inevitable refugee crisis, move military to the border, start air patrols and sea patrols. Cease all aid to NK. UN can air drop relief if it wants. I don't know, doesn't seem all that great either.

For a long shot: Or how about some reverse psychology? Yay NK, good for you, welcome to the nuclear club. Ignore, ignore. I mean, what do they want? What's the point of going nuclear? If they claim it's for energy and security, ok, call them on it. No ones gonna attack them, no one cares about them. If we take away the "power" of nukes from NK, then what? What if we all pretend not to care about NK and their lil' nukes? I swear, lil' Kim is like a little spoiled brat who just wants attention and uses nukes to get it. What a wanker. Maybe child psychology would work on him.

Japan does have a "Self Defense Forces". But under Article 9 of their constitution they aren't supposed to use it for anything other than self-defense. that's why their involvment is so controversial. Many Japanese and their neighbors are unhappy with this direction.

Japan is highly advanced. They are estimated to be able to produce a nuclear weapon within a year or so. They are considered nuclear capable. They are not as weak as they may appear to be though smaller in number, they are more advanced. Plus the US supposedly provides for their defense.

I don't think they can invade and occupy though, that's a whole different ball game.

Meaning what?

Japan or South Korea aren't really in a position to do much. To start militarily, Japan isn't up to snuff to deal with a country like NK. Japan's military stands more as a defensive measure due to "historical" circumstances. This can be seen by their militaries very name, Japan Self-Defense Forces. This is there operation protocol

Japan's Basic Policy for National Defense stipulates the following policies:[7]

1. Maintaining an exclusive defense oriented policy.
2. To avoid becoming a major military power that might pose a threat to the world.
3. Refraining from the development of nuclear weapons, and to refuse to allow nuclear weapons inside Japanese territory.
4. Ensuring civilian control of the military.
5. Maintaining security arrangements with the United States.
6. Building up defensive capabilities within moderate limits.

Furthermore, they have constitutional issues when dealing with threats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces

As such Japan has no military lift capacity, and extremely limited offensive strike capabilities. They have defense compacts with us in the states, we have just shy of 50,000 troops there. Therefore it seems Japan's only chance at addressing this system is either economic, which means dick when it comes to a dejected leper nation like NK, or diplomatic which is the dance we have been doing with those North Korean assclowns for 12+ years. North Korea has no lift capacity, but they could fight tough in a defensive capacity as they operate under a military first policy, they also maintain the worlds 4th largest standing army I believe.

There is also a problem with China insofar as the regional politics scene is concerned. China tends to push/nudge NK and they prop them up. The thing is a fucked up nutjob country in NK is good for China, it keeps the rest of the legit countries on tilt in dealing with them. China controls the leash and they will keep the status quo because an un-unified Korean province can't challenge them; they are the reason that NK hasn't gone completely under.

Japan has an impressive naval capacity, and they have a lot of short range missles. That's all they need to limit and then destroy North Korea's nuclear capabilities. What idiot would invade NK on foot?

Containment policy might be invoked. I would be at a loss on why the US would try NK, but many of our administrations have done things that aren't exactly adventagous.

I think you had better do a bit more research on Japan's Self Defense Forces. There is no first strike capability, not even in-air refueuling. All missiles are ground-to-air, strictly defensive. There are less than 300,000 Japanese IN TOTAL under arms, and they are not even "military" personnel, they are classified as "Special Civil Servants". If you want a good laugh, send them against NK in any way.

Edit: I would not call less than 200 total ships "an impressive naval capacity", but that's just me.

I think you should do more research on North Korea's military. Guess what? They don't have shields.

If Japan is in danger (which they are), they are allowed to protect themselves. Japan Air Self-Defense Force front-line formations include three ground-attack squadrons (a squadren that can attack the ground, WITH MISSLES!!). Those squadrens easily have the range to do attack runs on NK, espically if they can get refueled in South Korea a few times before North Korea figures out what's going on. If you want a good laugh, send up the Soviet-era airforce that North Korea has and put them up against the modern technology of Japan.

As for the 200 total ships comment....again Japan has vastly superior technology to North Korea in every way. I'd love to see a Tachikaze class destroyer take on a North Korean frigate or corvette.

Hey, you guys.....wait up! How come nobody told me our forum was moving here?

Let's see... Japan has 300,000 total military personnel to NK's 6 million. Japan has 250,000 frontline personnel to NK's 1.2 million. Japan has a slight advantage of about 300 total aircraft, but NK has around 17,000 missile defense systems to Japan's roughly 1000. And 175 total ships to NK's almost 800.

Technology aside, I'm not sure why this looks like a good match up. Maybe Japan could take out some nuclear capability with a sneak attack (who would suspect the Japanese, right?), but the rest of NK's military machine, however broken down and antiquated it may be, would spring to life and rain hell all over eastern Asia.

Personally, as one who lives in Japan, I would rather not see that happen. If it is necessary to take out NK's nuke sites, it will be necessary to take out their entire military capability. I believe that this would be better accomplished by a sustained cruise missile barrage of unimaginable proportion brought on simultaneoulsy by The US, China, and Russia.

I don't believe that Japan is in danger of NK's nukes yet, because there is no delivery system other than a bomber. Before we start talking about Japan gettin' all up in NK's face militarilly, there are other options to explore.

well, since we are all here anyway, why not have a look at this?

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100901130.html



so this whole thing makes me nervous but not for the reasons most are talking about above.
i think it looks more like the situation the article outlines.
and that, folks, could be very ugly indeed.


o and here's another bit of curious infotainment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/wo...rtner=homepage

the article is strange: "so it was a test and so like it was a success in that regard but not a very big one, really, almost maybe not one or just a really little one. nk really isn't part of the Huge Nuclear Penis Club, no this doesn't count pshaw----or maybe the opposite..."

but it does have a cool graphic that shows the differences in waveforms between nuclear weapons being fired underground and earthquakes, which is nice to know no matter how this plays out.

unless the vienna 1815 approach (calling dr. kissinger...) is reflected in what the administration does next.

i think they're going to have to do diplomacy.
and everyone everywhere will be thinking about iraq the whole time.


i find myself almost cheering for cowboy george.
"go george," i say
and i kinda push my fist outward.

So you want China, Russia, and the US to kill thousands of innocent people, again? Whatever happened to diplomacy? Perhaps it was caught in the crossfire.

Best option? North Korea suddenly has a massive bloodless civil war and Kim is removed from power and replaced by the Dalai Lama and a resurected Gandhi. They develop a clean energy source that's only byproduect is a calorie free form of chocolate.

In reality, South Korea and Japan are in danger. We all know South Korea is massively outgunned, therefore it falls to Japan. Japan, despite being outnumbered, is not outgunned. Japan has the right to defend itself. If Japan asks for help from the UN, then I really hope the UN is able to snap into action (unlike what they normally do). The US does have a great deal of troops posted for just such a rainy nuclear day in the South Pacific (Bali Ha'i!!!). I'm hoping that multilateral peace talks will be succesful, but I know that the US, Japan, Australia(?) and South Korea combined could wipe North Korea from history very quickly...if we simply bomb them from above. The problem with that is of course that only 1 in like 48 North Koreans are military and if we bomb indiscrimantly, like was done in Iraq, we end up with massive civilian casualties.

What ever happened to spies? Why isn't there a James Bond in NK finding out where the nukes are?

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.

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?

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.

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

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... :(

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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...

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?

It's a tough call - could be appeasement

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?

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".)

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.

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

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.

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.