POL- N. Korea aims missles at Hawaii?

[Lathum]

U.S. Fortifies Hawaii to Meet Threat From Korea - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124535285705228571.html)

[DaddyTorgo]

meh.

[Lathum]

yeah, I think it was made a bigger deal here but was surprised it wasn't brought up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

{shrug}

I don't mean that in a disinterested way, more of a "this was part of last night's family discussion over dinner" (TV was on the restaurant so it was kind of in our face).

Bottom line for me right now is that I don't gain much from speculating about what NK or the US will do or won't do and there isn't much we can do but wait & see. Obviously be prepared of course & Gates seems to be making the right noises about that but in the end we can't do much but wait to see what move the nutjob in Pyongang makes.

And in this instance, I'll pass on trying to guess whether Obama will have the right response or the wrong response since there's such a wide field of possibilities he might have to respond to.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah...they're such an irrational actor i've got no idea what they'll do - all we can do is wait and be prepared, but that being said i'm not overly concerned with the danger of it at this point

[JonInMiddleGA]

yeah...they're such an irrational actor i've got no idea what they'll do - all we can do is wait and be prepared, but that being said i'm not overly concerned with the danger of it at this point

I'm more worried about them firing a missile at some random point in the Pacific & hitting Hawaii by accident than I am about them aiming at Hawaii.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm more worried about them firing a missile at some random point in the Pacific & hitting Hawaii by accident than I am about them aiming at Hawaii.

:lol: - when did you and I start agreeing on so much. Is this like the Star Trek mirror universe?

[duckman]

I'll actually worry about one of North Korea's long range missiles when one actually goes long distance.

[Lathum]

I bring people together

[k0ruptr]

not worried...but every other local person I over hear lately is talking about how we might get nuked. heh.

[Big Fo]

Hawaii is 4500 miles away from them and the furthest NK can reach is 4000 miles apparently. Maybe they'll scare some fish.

[Dutch]

I wouldn't be too concerned about them bombing Hawaii (or fish in the sea).

I would be more concerned with the long range ballistic R&D they are performing without protest. That technology can be proliferated. I'd also continue to remain concerned about their knowledge of (and capability to build) nuclear weapons. That too can be proliferated for the right price. Continuing on, I'd be concerned about how poor North Korea is. They could sure use the money. So basically, they are a very dangerous nation and not to be taken lightly.

[fantom1979]

I'll actually worry about one of North Korea's long range missiles when one actually goes long distance.

QFT

I am not sure why they would fire at Hawaii, there are plenty of US targets a lot closer and a lot easier to hit. Japan and South Korea come to mind.

[Galaxy]

Hawaii is 4500 miles away from them and the furthest NK can reach is 4000 miles apparently. Maybe they'll scare some fish.

It's only a matter of time.

[Big Fo]

I wouldn't be too concerned about them bombing Hawaii (or fish in the sea).

I would be more concerned with the long range ballistic R&D they are performing without protest. That technology can be proliferated. I'd also continue to remain concerned about their knowledge of (and capability to build) nuclear weapons. That too can be proliferated for the right price. Continuing on, I'd be concerned about how poor North Korea is. They could sure use the money. So basically, they are a very dangerous nation and not to be taken lightly.

All good points. Poor, crazy, and WMDs are a bad combination.

[JohnnyBGood]

I did quite a bit of research on NK in back in college a few years ago. If anyone is interested in learning about what goes on there, I highly recommend the book "The Aquariums of Pyongyang" written by a NK prisoner escapee... absolutely shocking stuff. Quick read too, can probably finish in one sitting. Since then, one of my favorite things to do for giggles is check out the DPRK central news agency where you can find all sorts of hot off the wire propaganda such as how Kim Jung Il played a round of golf today and shot 30 hole in ones! Nevermind that there is only 18 holes.

News From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK (http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm)

[Shkspr]

Poor, crazy, and WMDs are a bad combination.

I'm pretty sure I dated this girl in college.

[OldGiants]

Book 'em, Danno.

[dawgfan]

I'm certainly no expert on North Korea, so someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but shouldn't there be enormous pressure on China to be the primary ones dealing with the North Korea problem?

China wants to be a superpower, they feel that the Korean peninsula is in their "sphere of influence" (much like the U.S. feels about Central America), they supported and propped up the North Korean regime pretty much from the start - this is their mess, and if they want to be taken seriously as a superpower, let's see them act like one and fix the Korean problem.

[Klinglerware]

The Chinese won't act because they don't perceive North Korea as a threat.

On the other hand, the Chinese are concerned about a remilitarized Japan. If the North Korean missile capability develops sufficiently enough to scare Japan into an arms race, the Chinese will be more likely to step into the situation.

[dawgfan]

The Chinese won't act because they don't perceive North Korea as a threat.
True, but this is where the whole idea of China being taken seriously as a superpower comes into play. North Korea is clearly a rogue nation, and whether or not they pose a direct threat to China or not, they are a threat to the civilized world. And if they would be highly resistant to any U.S. military action against North Korea without their tacit approval (and they would be), they need to be a significant part of the solution to the obvious problem that is Kim Jung Il - it's their backyard, they supported that regime for decades and they'll be affected one way another once that regime finally collapses.

Time for them to step up.

[Chief Rum]

I don't think China is waiting for or believes it needs the world's acknowledgement of it as a superpower. I think China already believes they're a superpower, and do not to need to do anything more to buffer that belief. Thus moving them back to the "North Korea is not interested in threatening us, so we don't care" mode.

[JPhillips]

True, but this is where the whole idea of China being taken seriously as a superpower comes into play. North Korea is clearly a rogue nation, and whether or not they pose a direct threat to China or not, they are a threat to the civilized world. And if they would be highly resistant to any U.S. military action against North Korea without their tacit approval (and they would be), they need to be a significant part of the solution to the obvious problem that is Kim Jung Il - it's their backyard, they supported that regime for decades and they'll be affected one way another once that regime finally collapses.

Time for them to step up.

But what do they get for stepping up? China is going to act in their self interest. What benefit do they get for calming down N. Korea? As long as they can keep the shooting from breaking out I think China is quite content allowing the N. Koreans to cause trouble for the US and Japan.

[SteveMax58]

But what do they get for stepping up? China is going to act in their self interest. What benefit do they get for calming down N. Korea? As long as they can keep the shooting from breaking out I think China is quite content allowing the N. Koreans to cause trouble for the US and Japan.

+1

I'd also add that even if you assume China has the slightest desire to help the US & Japan with this matter, the problem is that even if they were to apply pressure by cutting off funding to NK, the NK government would be perfectly fine with letting a few hundred thousand citizens starve to death.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But what do they get for stepping up? China is going to act in their self interest. What benefit do they get for calming down N. Korea?

The most obvious would be avoiding WW III on their doorstep. Of course that assumes that they don't want that.

[Wolfpack]

+1

I'd also add that even if you assume China has the slightest desire to help the US & Japan with this matter, the problem is that even if they were to apply pressure by cutting off funding to NK, the NK government would be perfectly fine with letting a few hundred thousand citizens starve to death.

Or better yet, "mass migrate" over the border into China.

[fantom1979]

A U.S. Navy destroyer is tailing a North Korean ship suspected of carrying illicit weapons toward Myanmar in what could be the first test of new U.N. sanctions against the North over its recent nuclear test, a leading TV network said Sunday.

Report: NKorea ship suspected of carrying missiles - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear)

[sterlingice]

Since then, one of my favorite things to do for giggles is check out the DPRK central news agency where you can find all sorts of hot off the wire propaganda such as how Kim Jung Il played a round of golf today and shot 30 hole in ones! Nevermind that there is only 18 holes.

News From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK (http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm)

Awesome. That's like one of my hobbies of going to Pravda and reading about the aliens or bigfoot or other crazy conspiracies.

(or looking at Fox News)

SI

[StLee]

I did quite a bit of research on NK in back in college a few years ago. If anyone is interested in learning about what goes on there, I highly recommend the book "The Aquariums of Pyongyang" written by a NK prisoner escapee... absolutely shocking stuff. Quick read too, can probably finish in one sitting. Since then, one of my favorite things to do for giggles is check out the DPRK central news agency where you can find all sorts of hot off the wire propaganda such as how Kim Jung Il played a round of golf today and shot 30 hole in ones! Nevermind that there is only 18 holes.

News From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK (http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm)

Hah! I tried to open that site, but apparently it is a blocked site in South Korea. I got a warning from Korea's government that the site is an illegal site. :lol:

[ISiddiqui]

The most obvious would be avoiding WW III on their doorstep. Of course that assumes that they don't want that.

I doubt they think its going to happen. Of course, if NK does launch a missile at Japan or Hawaii, I'm sure China will act shocked and send troops in, leading to few governments to officially blame China for letting things get to that point.

[rowech]

I doubt they think its going to happen. Of course, if NK does launch a missile at Japan or Hawaii, I'm sure China will act shocked and send troops in, leading to few governments to officially blame China for letting things get to that point.

If NK actually fires a missle toward Hawaii and they don't get 10 right up their ass within a half hour, I'll be livid.

[Big Fo]

North Korea has threatened to wipe us off the face of the Earth.


NKorea threatens US; world anticipates missile

By HYUNG-JIN KIM, Associated Press Writer Hyung-jin Kim, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jun 24, 8:51 am ET

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea threatened Wednesday to wipe the United States off the map as Washington and its allies watched for signs the regime will launch a series of missiles in the coming days.

Off China's coast, a U.S. destroyer was tailing a North Korean ship suspected of transporting illicit weapons to Myanmar in what could be the first test of U.N. sanctions passed to punish the nation for an underground nuclear test last month.

The Kang Nam left the North Korean port of Nampo a week ago with the USS John S. McCain close behind. The ship, accused of transporting banned goods in the past, is believed bound for Myanmar, according to South Korean and U.S. officials.

The new U.N. Security Council resolution requires member states to seek permission to inspect suspicious cargo. North Korea has said it would consider interception a declaration of war and on Wednesday accused the U.S. of seeking to provoke another Korean War.

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," the official Korean Central News Agency said.

The warning came on the eve of the 59th anniversary of the start of the three-year Korean War, which ended in a truce in 1953, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula in state of war.

The U.S. has 28,500 troops in South Korea to protect against an outbreak of hostilities.

Tensions have been high since North Korea launched a long-range rocket in April and then conducted its second underground atomic test on May 25.

Reacting to U.N. condemnation of that test, North Korea walked away from nuclear disarmament talks and warned it would fire a long-range missile.

North Korea has banned ships from the waters off its east coast starting Thursday through July 10 for military exercises, Japan's Coast Guard said.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Wednesday that the North may fire a Scud missile with a range of up to 310 miles (500 kilometers) or a short-range ground-to-ship missile with a range of 100 miles (160 kilometers) during the no-sail period.

A senior South Korean government official said the no-sail ban is believed connected to North Korean plans to fire short- or mid-range missiles. He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department policy.

U.S. defense and counterproliferation officials in Washington said they also expected the North to launch short- to medium-range missiles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

South Korea will expedite the introduction of high-tech unmanned aerial surveillance systems and "bunker-buster" bombs in response to North Korea's provocations, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper said, citing unidentified ruling party members.

Meanwhile, a flurry of diplomatic efforts were under way to try getting North Korea to return to disarmament talks.

Russia's top nuclear envoy, Alexei Borodavkin, said after meeting with his South Korean counterpart that Moscow is open to other formats for discussion since Pyongyang has pulled out of formal six-nation negotiations.

In Beijing, top U.S. and Chinese defense officials also discussed North Korea. U.S. Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy was heading next to Tokyo and Seoul for talks.

South Korea has proposed high-level "consultations" to discuss North Korea with the U.S., Russia, China and Japan.

___

Associated Press writers Jae-soon Chang in Seoul; Pauline Jelinek, Pamela Hess and Lolita Baldor in Washington and Min Lee in Hong Kong contributed to this report.


I'm getting pretty tired of these guys.

[PilotMan]

NK is just a little kid throwing a big ass temper tantrum. For the past number of years they have been involved in a series of saber rattling-brinkmanship-concessions cycles.

This all seems to be along the same lines. In my opinion they are wholly insignificant, and it's time for the rest of the world to realize that the crazy ramblings of this administration are vastly out of step from the rest of the world.

[SteveMax58]

I think Obama should challenge this guy to a haircut match and just end this petty rhetoric.

[CamEdwards]

NK is just a little kid throwing a big ass temper tantrum. For the past number of years they have been involved in a series of saber rattling-brinkmanship-concessions cycles.

This all seems to be along the same lines. In my opinion they are wholly insignificant, and it's time for the rest of the world to realize that the crazy ramblings of this administration are vastly out of step from the rest of the world.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what would that "realization" consist of? What would change as a result of that realization in your ideal scenario?

[PilotMan]

Well I'm tired here, but here we go.

I would like other counties to step up and say, "Hey, the world doesn't consist of only the US." We have a say too, and we say what they say, you're an idot, and we won't tolerate you acting like this either."

For now, it seems like it is still the US and the leader, focal point, target, head insurrectionist, whatever you want to call it. Let the rest of the world say what we have been saying all along. Let's continue to let them beat their chest, but not give them what they want which is a center stage from which to do it.

Does anyone honestly believe that they are going to provoke war with anyone? At best they sell some stuff to the bad guys. That's what we need to be mindful of.

NK doens't matter at all beyond their little sphere of influence. Certainly not in global matters, and crazy rantings about nukes and war are meant to be attention getters. The more we play them off and cause them to lose face the worse position it puts them in.

Maybe their leader would get desparate enough to try something at that point, just to prove a point, but then maybe other countries step up and assume the lead in isolating them from the rest of civilization as well.

Call thier bluff, they lack the means with their broke, prison state of a country. It's the old USSR all over again.

[SteveMax58]

Call thier bluff, they lack the means with their broke, prison state of a country. It's the old USSR all over again.

+1

But I will add that I honestly believe calling their bluff will lead NK to actually fire a (non-nuke) missile over Tokyo...or fire something into S Korea (though I suspect they'll try to avoid areas that they believe US troops are stationed). But giving in with more concessions will accomplish nothing either...other than to continue the welfare of a country(albeit a hijacked country) that has no interest in reciprocating the good will, and in fact, works daily to counter the interests of said welfare donors.

It's unfortunate...but we just aren't filled with a world of noble leaders who are willing to proactively take stands against this type of backwards-thinking posturing. But while I was not pro-Obama during the election, I am tending to like the dilemna(or spotlight if you will) he puts the rest of the world into with his stand back approach.

It basically forces the rest of the world leaders to overcome their own political expediency of bashing the US "at home", yet going along and making it appear that the "big bad US bully made us do it". I think it's absolutely brilliant, personally.

[Desnudo]

I did quite a bit of research on NK in back in college a few years ago. If anyone is interested in learning about what goes on there, I highly recommend the book "The Aquariums of Pyongyang" written by a NK prisoner escapee... absolutely shocking stuff. Quick read too, can probably finish in one sitting. Since then, one of my favorite things to do for giggles is check out the DPRK central news agency where you can find all sorts of hot off the wire propaganda such as how Kim Jung Il played a round of golf today and shot 30 hole in ones! Nevermind that there is only 18 holes.

News From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK (http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm)

They have a Geocities website for their national news agency, but nukes. Time to move to the East Coast.

[Hammer]

I would like other counties to step up and say, "Hey, the world doesn't consist of only the US." We have a say too, and we say what they say, you're an idot, and we won't tolerate you acting like this either."

For now, it seems like it is still the US and the leader, focal point, target, head insurrectionist, whatever you want to call it. Let the rest of the world say what we have been saying all along. Let's continue to let them beat their chest, but not give them what they want which is a center stage from which to do it.


Other countries really are not concerned about what the U.S. thinks about North Korea, they already have their own opinions, and in some cases have made them known. If they happen to share likewise values as the U.S. then naturally they tend to form an alliance. That doesn't mean to say they are just followers.

I was also under the impression the U.S. had genuine allies, who happened to have common beliefs and goals. The arrogant stance of some Americans, not all or even the majority, that think the U.S. is at the centre of the universe is what causes so much resentment towards the country. There are a number of countries, allies or otherwise, than could knock NC flat in a heartbeat. Its not just up to the U.S. to deal with, its a world wide issue.

[dawgfan]

Its not just up to the U.S. to deal with, its a world wide issue.
It most certainly is, and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the world step up to the table on this issue.

[Hammer]

It most certainly is, and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the world step up to the table on this issue.


But they have, you might not see it on the news if your American, but they have. The UK, where I come from, have publicly condemned North Korea. As part of the UN we are deciding on appropriate action, as it should be done - a worldwide body.

We could send a submarine in ourselves and they would never see it coming, as could a number of countries. Drop a nuke on their asses - but thats really not appropriate is it. I might be entirely wrong, but I sometimes wonder if Americans in general realise the capabilities of their allies, such as France and the UK. Sure we don't have the number of nukes you guys have, but the world is a small place these days, either country could pretty much destroy the world. I guess there are half a dozen or so countries that could now, in theory. Its not just up to the U.S. to solve worldwide issues, under the UN umbrella, as a team of countries with commonly held beliefs, its far more difficult for a rogue country to argue an issue.

Its human beings caught up in the middle of this, a few ass hats at the top are causing this problem. Sending in a ground force isn't really a great idea either, history has shown us that. The UN have to be allowed to do their job, if NC cross the line then there is no option but to use force. Until then its all about politics unfortunately. I really don't think the U.S. should continue as the worldwide enforcer, I love Obama's approach. If the UN and not the US is the enforcer, I think it will be better for everyone concerned.

[lungs]

Are there still restrictions on Japanese military strength from WW2? If so, lift them.

[billethius]

Its not just up to the U.S. to deal with, its a world wide issue.

It's neither. N. Korea is insignificant - all of this is just an attempt at further concessions.

More than anything else, dictators want to stay in power - and as crazy as the N. Korean government is, they know that launching a nuke at anyone is a quick way to get themselves thrown out of power (and likely killed).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Are there still restrictions on Japanese military strength from WW2? If so, lift them.

Unless I'm extremely mistaken, their own constitution is what limits their military & they aren't all that keen on removing those limits.

[lungs]

Unless I'm extremely mistaken, their own constitution is what limits their military & they aren't all that keen on removing those limits.

Nevermind, then. :)

It would be nice to have a strong Japanese military in the region though. But if they don't want it, they don't want it.

[Autumn]

I think people underestimate the hold North Korea has over the U.S. and allies. The reason North Korea still exists in the state it does, and continues to push their luck successfully, is because they have what i believe is the largest concentration of artillery and firepower in the world within firing range of Seoul. The reason the U.S. doesn't just blow up their facilities or treat them like Iran is because they've got a real lever, the ability to attack a city of what, 20 million?, within minutes and devastate it.

Their power doesn't go much further than that, but that's quite a stranglehold and explains a lot about the way North Korea is treated by the rest of the world, I believe.

[Autumn]

Unless I'm extremely mistaken, their own constitution is what limits their military & they aren't all that keen on removing those limits.

Well, some in Japan are keen, it's been a topic of a lot of discussion and some change in recent years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It would be nice to have a strong Japanese military in the region though. But if they don't want it, they don't want it.

Japan Self-Defense Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces)
In theory, Japan's rearmament is thoroughly prohibited by Article 9 of the Japanese constitution which not only states, "The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes", but also declares, "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained." In practice, however, the Diet (or Parliament), which Article 41 of the Constitution defines as "the highest organ of the state power", established the Self-Defense Forces in 1954. Due to such a constitutional tension concerning the Forces' status, any attempt at enhancing the Forces' capabilities and budget tends to be politically controversial. Thus the JSDF has very limited capabilities to operate overseas, lacks long range offensive capabilities such as long-range surface-to-surface missiles, aerial refueling (as of 2004[update]), marines, amphibious units, or large caches of ammunitions. The Rules of Engagement are strictly defined by the Self-Defence Forces Act 1954.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I might be entirely wrong, but I sometimes wonder if Americans in general realise the capabilities of their allies, such as France and the UK. If the UN and not the US is the enforcer, I think it will be better for everyone concerned.

(picks self up off floor)

Yeah, I'm going to go with the 'entirely wrong' comment as being accurate.

Trust me. No one wants the US to back away from the role of enforcer more than the US. With that said, if you're going to offer up France and the UN as the new enforcers, I'd say most of the US would rather remain the enforcer.

[EagleFan]

could knock NC flat in a heartbeat.

I don't know, they looked pretty dominent this year. That championship game was decided before halftime.

:)

[DaddyTorgo]

Nevermind, then. :)

It would be nice to have a strong Japanese military in the region though. But if they don't want it, they don't want it.

The fact that they haven't had to pour a ton of their GDP into defense spending has sure made their economic growth much easier!

[Mustang]

If North Korea is going to fire a missile at Hawaii, now would be the time. With the Michael Jackson death in the news, I'm not sure anyone would notice.

[lungs]

Isn't Kim Jong-Il a big fan of Michael Jackson? Our best chance at peace may have been destroyed yesterday.

[Autumn]

That may be all that's been holding him back all these years. Watch out Los Angeles!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That may be all that's been holding him back all these years. Watch out Los Angeles!

Meh. Global warming will cause California to fall into the ocean soon anyway. Let him expedite the process and take out a bunch of paparazzi (sp?) along with it.

[GrantDawg]

I may be completely mistaken, but my limited understanding of the Asian Pacific is that there is one thing that all the nations of the area can agree on is their hatred of the Japanese. Imperial Japan had a brutal hold over many areas of Asia less than 100 years ago. A militarized Japan would not be welcomed by far more countries than just NK. I believe that there are areas under South Korean, Chinese and Russian control that Japan still claim as theirs. With a strong military, they might just be tempted to regain control of those areas.

[DanGarion]

Meh. Global warming will cause California to fall into the ocean soon anyway. Let him expedite the process and take out a bunch of paparazzi (sp?) along with it.

NO NO NO you have it wrong. An earthquake will make California fall into the ocean. Global warming would only drown out the first couple miles of coast.

[Autumn]

Time to snatch up some prime (soon to be) beachfront property in Nevada. The perfect plan ...

[Hammer]

(picks self up off floor)

Yeah, I'm going to go with the 'entirely wrong' comment as being accurate.

Trust me. No one wants the US to back away from the role of enforcer more than the US. With that said, if you're going to offer up France and the UN as the new enforcers, I'd say most of the US would rather remain the enforcer.



What because France didn't want to get involved in the Iraq invasion? Was that really such a bad decision on their part?

I think many of the problems both the U.S. and U.K. have with other countries is in some part because they are so heavy handed. That is why both are so resented, rightly or wrongly.

Maybe France are too far the other way, but whats worse? The U.S. is seen a bully by many nations. The "You can't have any nukes" attitude - coming from a country that is loaded. It really doesn't hold water does it. Its easy to see why other countries have a problem with that.

A UN force respresents a means of enforcement which effectively takes the likes of the U.S. and U.K. off the hook because its by definition a united force.

[PilotMan]

The way that I see it. The leadership of the country knows that Kim Jong-Il's days are numbered. They know he is ready to keel over and die any minute. They have already announced his successor, and they want him to go out with strength and with the country at a high point in international prestige as they see it.

This is the perfect opportunity for them to change leadership, while maintaining the illusion of a strong government during the leadership change. The new leader will have an easy path to follow and the government can present a seamless transition.

[PilotMan]

Well I think that France's decision was based more on their illegal trade with Iraq and their desire to see Saddam stay in power to keep that deal working.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What because France didn't want to get involved in the Iraq invasion? Was that really such a bad decision on their part?

I think many of the problems both the U.S. and U.K. have with other countries is in some part because they are so heavy handed. That is why both are so resented, rightly or wrongly.

Maybe France are too far the other way, but whats worse? The U.S. is seen a bully by many nations. The "You can't have any nukes" attitude - coming from a country that is loaded. It really doesn't hold water does it. Its easy to see why other countries have a problem with that.

A UN force respresents a means of enforcement which effectively takes the likes of the U.S. and U.K. off the hook because its by definition a united force.

If the UK wants to step in as an enforcer, so be it.

As far as France and the UN go, yeah, let's not go there. Their level of corruption and underhanded dealings make the US government look good, which is no small feat in my estimation. The Iraq situation is only a VERY small piece of that pie.

[dawgfan]

The "You can't have any nukes" attitude - coming from a country that is loaded. It really doesn't hold water does it. Its easy to see why other countries have a problem with that.
You're not serious with that comment are you?

I mean, yeah, maybe North Korea and Iran have a problem with the international community (and it's the international community, not just the U.S.) not wanting them to have nukes, but most of the civilized world are OK with the idea of unstable and/or fundamentalist regimes not having access to nuclear weapons.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You're not serious with that comment are you?

I fear he's serious with all his comments.

[sterlingice]

Are there still restrictions on Japanese military strength from WW2? If so, lift them.

I don't think China or Russia will let you do that. China, in particular, is tired of getting their rear ends handed to them by a little island for the better part of 2000 years. You can try to force their hands by letting it happen, but then changes happen on their terms and not yours.

SI

[Hammer]

You guys are just looking at it from your point of view, thats the problem. Look at it from theirs. Any country has as much right to defend itself as much as the U.S. You can't tell them to stop their nuclear program, if you have nukes yourself. That simple. You wonder why they resent the U.S. telling them, with all the weapons they have....especially after they have been throwing their weight around.

I know its tough to look at this from a neutral perspective if your American. But really, unless you do, well, thats what causes the ill feeling ultimately. The resentment your country, and mine, faces.

At the risk of repeating myself, the answer is to step back and let the UN handle the situation. One country, no matter how powerful, simply can't do it. It won't be accepted.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

At the risk of repeating myself, the answer is to step back and let the UN handle the situation. One country, no matter how powerful, simply can't do it. It won't be accepted.

At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who consider an organization as misaligned and corrupt as the UN capable of being the enforcer in any capacity has lost his marbles.

[SteveMax58]

I might be entirely wrong, but I sometimes wonder if Americans in general realise the capabilities of their allies, such as France and the UK.
French jokes aside...I don't think it's an underestimation of "capability" as it is a matter of whether they are inclined to act. The UK, in general, tends to be lumped into the US on these matters IMO. So, even when stating "the US needs to act"...the reality is always "the US/UK will act".


I really don't think the U.S. should continue as the worldwide enforcer, I love Obama's approach. If the UN and not the US is the enforcer, I think it will be better for everyone concerned.
I think you'll find most Americans in agreement about not being the enforcers (or the world's policemen).

What I think you're overlooking is the political expediency of the US allies' (not so much the UK or Australia, but France, Germany, and countless others outside of Europe) political leaders to play both sides of the fence. Bush was a great uniting target for this. Ignoring any corrupt relationships for the moment, these leaders could very conveniently get the US (and UK) to do all the dirty work while they placated to their voting public the notion that the US is the "big bully" and looking to "expand its empire". Now that the US is (nearly) incapable of backing up everybody else's veiled threats any longer(and subsequent backpeddling to bash the US government)...we'll see what happens. Brilliant strategy by Obama.

I suspect what we'll actually see is that countries like France & Germany, Japan & S-Korea will begin taking the lead on Iran & NK (respectively) due to being more regional issues for them.

I guess all of that is to just say that...I think the "real" diplomacy happens behind the scenes...and the US government under Bush was fine with playing "good cop, bad cop" moreso than Obama is. Don't read that as a ringing endorsement for Bush...but I think it's a bit shallow-sighted to listen to all the rhetoric out there and draw simple conclusions that the US bullies everybody (whether by military or economic force) without their consent or interests being aligned.

[DanGarion]

You guys are just looking at it from your point of view, thats the problem. Look at it from theirs. Any country has as much right to defend itself as much as the U.S. You can't tell them to stop their nuclear program, if you have nukes yourself. That simple. You wonder why they resent the U.S. telling them, with all the weapons they have....especially after they have been throwing their weight around.

Nukes are not defensive weapons...

Oh and the UN can kiss my ass anyday.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Nukes are not defensive weapons...


I would disagree with this. I think that, for the most part, they are defensive weapons. We're all fucked if somebody decides that they aren't, actually.

[DanGarion]

I would disagree with this. I think that, for the most part, they are defensive weapons. We're all fucked if somebody decides that they aren't, actually.

Well I meant in the context of actual use. In the context of having them they are defensive, because you can use the fact that you have them to your advantage to protect yourself.

[SteveMax58]

You guys are just looking at it from your point of view, thats the problem. Look at it from theirs. Any country has as much right to defend itself as much as the U.S. You can't tell them to stop their nuclear program, if you have nukes yourself. That simple. You wonder why they resent the U.S. telling them, with all the weapons they have....especially after they have been throwing their weight around.
When the "leader" (dictator, president, supreme ruler, etc.) of a sovereign nation continually announces their desire to see another group of people on the planet removed...this draws hesitation (from the WORLD) to allow them to "defend" their "right" to do so.

I would also argue that the world (or US, take your pick) doesn't typically object to such things flippantly. Countries like India, China, & Pakistan also have such weapons...and while the US may not like it...there isn't much room to object for similar reasons that you've outlined above. But putting Iran and NK in that group is moral relativism at it's worst. Do you also believe that yelling "fire" in a movie theater doesnt have consequence when there is no fire?

If you want to discuss nuclear arms reduction by everybody...that's a different story.

[Mustang]

Hammer doesn't believe this stuff. He is just getting his name out there so we notice that it is his birthday tomorrow.

Well played.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

As long as Hammer doesn't hurt 'em, he's fine by me.

[sterlingice]

When the "leader" (dictator, president, supreme ruler, etc.) of a sovereign nation continually announces their desire to see another group of people on the planet removed...this draws hesitation (from the WORLD) to allow them to "defend" their "right" to do so.

I would also argue that the world (or US, take your pick) doesn't typically object to such things flippantly. Countries like India, China, & Pakistan also have such weapons...and while the US may not like it...there isn't much room to object for similar reasons that you've outlined above. But putting Iran and NK in that group is moral relativism at it's worst. Do you also believe that yelling "fire" in a movie theater doesnt have consequence when there is no fire?

If you want to discuss nuclear arms reduction by everybody...that's a different story.

The way I read it, you guys are arguing different points.

Yours (and others) are basically: "Does the rest of the world want NK or Iran to have nukes", to which the response is a fairly resounding "No" with a few exceptions, namely NK, Iran, and a few groups who wouldn't mind them doing their dirty work

Hammer seems to be arguing that it looks kindof hollow coming from a country that has nukes, saying "no" to others is just bullying. He's right- I mean, think if you're in NK. It looks a lot simpler there- "they can have nukes, why can't I"? I'm not saying they are right, but these are two party negotiations (admittedly with one party led by a crazy guy). I mean, it's like when you asked your parents why you couldn't do something and they said "because" or "I told you so"- unless you can give a good reason, you could understand why the other party is going to just turn up their headphones and either ignore you or flat out tell you to "go screw off".

I don't think he's advocating for NK getting nukes, but just trying to put their perspective out there.

SI

[PilotMan]

I don't fear nukes. Tom Clancy proved that you can shoot them down with a reprogrammed missile from a missile-cruiser. But that you should have them explode in front of the missile, instead of when it reached the heat signature.

[SteveMax58]

I don't think he's advocating for NK getting nukes, but just trying to put their perspective out there.

SI

I don't think he's advocating that either...but the point I'm making is that the court of world opinion is strongly (not just passively) against them acquiring nukes....whether that be fair or unfair.

I understand why NK & Iranian (governments) believe they are entitled to nukes...but on issues of concern to the world their argument is only as valid as what the rest of the world finds "acceptable" and is willing to do about it. The "not acceptable" criteria is admittedly highly fluid from country to country, but does tend to include murderous rhetoric of groups of people.

I guess I just see it as "the world has an opinion" and the "world is willing to do x about it". This is derived from the collective belief systems of the world...always has and (conceivably) always will be the way the world handles disagreement.

So...if the world woke up tomorrow and believed that all countries that "house or allow the free practicing business of McDonalds restaurants" needed to be destroyed...and the US refused to believe as such...assuming the rest of the world were willing to fight for this ideal or concept, then we would have one heckuva battle to fight. Thankfully (or maybe not), the world is not that insane (yet).

So...to me...speculating about how NK or Iran "feel" about the issue is completely useless. The (mainly) Western world has a collection of beliefs which do not align with the idea of NK or Iran having nukes...for some tangible and other intangible reasons.

[Hammer]

I don't think he's advocating that either...but the point I'm making is that the court of world opinion is strongly (not just passively) against them acquiring nukes....whether that be fair or unfair.

Making this point is what got me started on this topic if you read back.

Where I seem to differ is that I really don't think an aggressive, arrogant attitude towards NK serves a purpose here. You tell them what to do, they will want to do the opposite. The U.S. doesn't have the authority to do that, it isn't there place to do so. Thats what pisses a lot of people off in a lot of countries. I include my own country in that, the U.K. are just as guilty as the U.S. in many ways.

The UN isn't an ideal answer, obviously there are some fundamental issues but they can be worked on. However I feel its the only real option.

As the world becomes a smaller place, and countries develop technologies its all the more important us like minded countries stick together. The next Pearl Harbour, and I believe it could happen in time, could be far more devastating if we continue to try to govern by force as we have in the past.

[SteveMax58]

Where I seem to differ is that I really don't think an aggressive, arrogant attitude towards NK serves a purpose here. You tell them what to do, they will want to do the opposite. The U.S. doesn't have the authority to do that, it isn't there place to do so. Thats what pisses a lot of people off in a lot of countries. I include my own country in that, the U.K. are just as guilty as the U.S. in many ways.

I think the difference here is that while neither you nor I are privy to the "real" conversations which occur between countries & their leaders...you presume that the US and/or UK tend to make aggressive actions without the approval of "allies" and like-minded countries because these same "allies" do not readily stand up and publicly announce their approval to the world.

Where I differ is that I don't necessarily believe the face value of anti-US (or anti-UK) rhetoric thrown about by these same "allies" due to the fact that these countries are all run by elected leaders who require re-election. In fact, I would dare say that there is likely much more agreement than disagreement behind the scenes...with most of the disagreement being how much they will go along and how vocal they will be publicly. I don't think that is an overly far-fetched concept due to the nature of politics in democracies & republics. Do they always agree? No, I don't think that's the case...but I do think that the image of the US (and UK) "bullying" or "imposing their will" on poor little NK or Iran or Iraq as the world's greatest propaganda campaign since WWII. If this were actually the case...I suspect NK & Iran would have many, many more "allies" of their own.

[Hammer]

Oh I agree with regards to the propaganda angle you discuss. Thats always going to be an issue. Again coming back to my point, the fact remains the US and UK really don't have any right to take the job on as enforcers. Its not there place to do so. It gives a solid foundation for any propaganda.

On the other hand, if its the UN doing the enforcing that propaganda isn't on such a firm footing to begin with. I'm sure they will still try to play the angle, but its far more difficult when you have a united front rather than a couple of countries with a history of sticking their noses in and flexing their muscles.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Oh I agree with regards to the propaganda angle you discuss. Thats always going to be an issue. Again coming back to my point, the fact remains the US and UK really don't have any right to take the job on as enforcers. Its not there place to do so. It gives a solid foundation for any propaganda.

On the other hand, if its the UN doing the enforcing that propaganda isn't on such a firm footing to begin with. I'm sure they will still try to play the angle, but its far more difficult when you have a united front rather than a couple of countries with a history of sticking their noses in and flexing their muscles.

Uh, we're not enforcers in this case. North Korea has announced that they will fire a warhead at one of our states. Iran's president has stated that he wants to bomb one of our allies off the face of the earth. That's not enforcing, that's self-defense and standing with an ally. The US isn't the ones ratcheting up the rhetoric here. We'd love to see them shut up and stop threatening us.

[CamEdwards]

You guys are just looking at it from your point of view, thats the problem. Look at it from theirs. Any country has as much right to defend itself as much as the U.S. You can't tell them to stop their nuclear program, if you have nukes yourself. That simple. You wonder why they resent the U.S. telling them, with all the weapons they have....especially after they have been throwing their weight around.

I know its tough to look at this from a neutral perspective if your American. But really, unless you do, well, thats what causes the ill feeling ultimately. The resentment your country, and mine, faces.

At the risk of repeating myself, the answer is to step back and let the UN handle the situation. One country, no matter how powerful, simply can't do it. It won't be accepted.

Are you Neville Chamberlain's grandson by any chance?

[Hammer]

Uh, we're not enforcers in this case. North Korea has announced that they will fire a warhead at one of our states.


I understood they have tested nuclear weapons, but they have announced they will actually fire a warhead? Is that really the case?

It sounds like what you watch on the news is a lot different over there. Someone is having the facts misrepresented to them.

[SFL Cat]

Time to snatch up some prime (soon to be) beachfront property in Nevada. The perfect plan ...

Too late. Lex Luthor has already beat you to this...See Superman The Motion Picture.

[DanGarion]

I understood they have tested nuclear weapons, but they have announced they will actually fire a warhead? Is that really the case?

It sounds like what you watch on the news is a lot different over there. Someone is having the facts misrepresented to them.

Have you read any of the news online?

north korea missile - Google News (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=north+korea+missile)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I understood they have tested nuclear weapons, but they have announced they will actually fire a warhead? Is that really the case?

It sounds like what you watch on the news is a lot different over there. Someone is having the facts misrepresented to them.

Uhhhh, they've threatened to strike Hawaii. You're making me look intelligent. Most on this board would tell you that's no small feat.

[Hammer]

Really, there is no need to be rude about it Mizzou. I'm not in the same country as you, all that has been reported here is that Japan has stirred things up, and the U.S. has made some speculation on NK's intent. No word that NK has announced they are going to fire a warhead at the U.S.

I'm reading your links Dan. Which one reports on NK's intention to fire at the U.S.?

I'm aware of speculation from Japan and the U.S., but thats far different from a direct threat of intent from N.K. Please point me in the right direction, I'm having trouble finding it.

[Hammer]

Well I've read the links Dan posted. Where is this threat from N.K. that they are going to skrike Hawaii???

[SteveMax58]

I understood they have tested nuclear weapons, but they have announced they will actually fire a warhead? Is that really the case?



They have announced they will "retaliate" if the US and/or allies try to "violate their sovereignty" by enforcing UN sanctions of searching suspected cargo ships.

UK report
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | North Korea warns of retaliation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8104709.stm)

Canadian report
North Korea threatens military strike against South Korea (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/05/27/korea-missile.html)


It sounds like what you watch on the news is a lot different over there. Someone is having the facts misrepresented to them.
The Hawaii-vicinity test missile is based primarily on "intelligence reports". I suppose if you blankedly dismiss intelligence agencies, it is your purview to do so...but apparently it is not dismissed by the US Seceratary of Defense, Robert Gates.

US report, sourced from Japanese intelligence originally
N. Korea May Fire Missile Toward Hawaii - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/18/world/main5095077.shtml)

I don't think these reports are conflicting, in general, nor do I think they convey "North Korea is planning to launch missile strikes tomorrow for fun at the US, SKorea, and Japan". But what it does indicate is an unequivalent response to S Korea supporting, and US/Allies enforcing, "UN Sanctions". NK ratcheting up rhetoric in response to a strawman "attack or invasion by the US" just further confirms the "non-defensive" intentions of the NK leadership's intentions...which is (IMHO) to continue creating world crises for the purposes of blackmailing the world and getting economic aid....rather than to use their resources internally to create such wealth and prosperity. Hence why they pick topics and issues that will purposely involve the US.

Why the US gets involved is because the regional US allies request this help(and we maintain presence in these countries due to similar obligations to these allies), or they will begin developing their own nuke arms to deter NK's unfound "defensive posturing"**. This arms race is not something China desires either, so hence why the US and China get involved, due to obvious levels of influence each has in the region. So...suggestiong the US "pokes it's nose in things" is completely missing the bigger picture. Just because this is easy and simple to understand as a concept, does not make it so.

** - If NK truly believed it had a reasonably warranted need for such elevated defensive reasons...wouldnt it make more sense for them to employ the UN via China (or even just China outside of the UN) to publicly proclaim sanctions and consequences if the US takes such "aggesssion" on NK. Of course...this is again not done in favor of propaganda campaigns to blackmail the world into giving them economic benefits that they refuse to diplomatically(and peacefully) pursue.

[Hammer]

It seems our news is the same afterall, its how we interpret it thats different.

No one is denying there is a big problem here. The danger is making more of it than is there. Speculation really is just that, speculation.

You make some very valid points, but I still can't see the direct threat of nuclear strike that Mizzou mentioned.

You might read into the word "retaliation" that is what they mean, but again, thats speculation. Thats thinking the worst. Its easy to get into the them and us mentality, and it seems to me your struggling to see this from a neutral perspective. To me they are just posturing, trying to stand up to an obviously more powerful country and not lose face doing so.

I'm not trying to defend this nutcase, don't get that idea. But lets try to get the facts clear. Threatening "retaliation", and an unsolicited nuclear attack are 2 entirely different things.

[dawgfan]

You might read into the word "retaliation" that is what they mean, but again, thats speculation. Thats thinking the worst. Its easy to get into the them and us mentality, and it seems to me your struggling to see this from a neutral perspective. To me they are just posturing, trying to stand up to an obviously more powerful country and not lose face doing so.

I'm not trying to defend this nutcase, don't get that idea. But lets try to get the facts clear. Threatening "retaliation", and an unsolicited nuclear attack are 2 entirely different things.
A threat from a country has to be considered in the context of what they are capable of. Now that NK has nuclear weapons, threats from them have to take that nuclear capability into account. Are they likely to use nuclear weapons if the U.S. intercepts that warship and inspects the cargo? Unlikely, but not inconceivable - we're not talking about the most rational of world leaders here.

Certainly they are posturing, but the question is how rational are they? How far would Kim go to not "lose face"? Risk the existence of his country?

[SteveMax58]

I'm not trying to defend this nutcase, don't get that idea. But lets try to get the facts clear. Threatening "retaliation", and an unsolicited nuclear attack are 2 entirely different things.

This is not an interpretation of the word "retaliation"...these are the words from the release from the NK state news agency (with bolded part in context).


"If the US and its followers infringe upon our republic's sovereignty even a bit, our military and people will launch a one hundred- or one thousand-fold retaliation with merciless military strike," said a commentary published by state news agency KCNA.


This is the unequivilent strawman painted by NK leadership. One has to define NK's definition of "infringement of sovereignty" to truly understand the meaning.

It isn't a question of neutrality of view in this...there is no such thing unless you believe all forms of government are wrong...and that all societies should return to despotism (or anarchy, etc.). Because short of that...you either believe in your society's (a) methodology to resolve conflict and issue for the common good, (b) you believe in leveraging your resoucres (both collective and individual) to accomplish common good...or (c) you believe in using both when necessary. All countries and all people do this...so neutrality of view is (of course) always through the eyes of the viewer's view of "acceptable rulesets". So trying to understand the NK view is not necessary, due to the belief that the outcome is worse for the common good...and based on NK's track record of disregard for it's own citizens well-being. I don't quite understand why this isn't inherently obvious.

The question you should be asking is..."Does NK leadership exhibit a reasonable contention for nuclear weapons, and if so, what are the consequences and fallout of such actions?" The world doesn't believe they have reasonable grounds to such contentions, but even if they did, does not believe the fallout and consequences (i.e. resulting Asian arms race) makes the NK contention "worthwhile or necessary for NK's sovereignty". This is of course, judgmental...this is what leadership is charged to do...make judgments.

[sterlingice]

Does anyone actually believe North Korea would actually launch a nuke in any but an extreme circumstance (i.e. us setting foot on their soil, etc)? And, if so, does anyone at all genuinely believe they have the means to do it?

I just don't get why everyone is taking this so seriously. I get that it's nukes and they're talking about aiming them at us. But with their missile and nuclear technology, we're probably talking about less than 00.0001% chance of it working and that's even if they were willing to do it.

I mean, how is this anything more than the kid in the schoolyard who thinks he's all that when it comes to fighting, going around boasting and saying he could beat Mike Tyson back in the 80s. Sure, he might have been the local tough guy, but he would get his clock cleaned by the best fighters in the school if he challenged them. And, if somehow he ran into craz-- Iron Mike, he'd wet his pants and just never utter a peep about fighting him. They're just all talk to show off locally.

SI

[Dutch]

No one is denying there is a big problem here. The danger is making more of it than is there. Speculation really is just that, speculation.

I disagree. I think history has proven that the real danger has been underestimating your enemy's intentions. Obviously you don't want to skew too far from perfect when assessing your enemy, but the trick is nobody knows where perfect is. So should we overestimate or underestimate their desire for war? Lots of factors go into that. Being one of the top 3 or 4 nations on the planet in hostile rhetoric (and the ability to back it up) has proven (in recent history) to be a good sign of bad things to come.

[Dutch]

Does anyone actually believe North Korea would actually launch a nuke in any but an extreme circumstance (i.e. us setting foot on their soil, etc)? And, if so, does anyone at all genuinely believe they have the means to do it?

I just don't get why everyone is taking this so seriously. I get that it's nukes and they're talking about aiming them at us. But with their missile and nuclear technology, we're probably talking about less than 00.0001% chance of it working and that's even if they were willing to do it.

I mean, how is this anything more than the kid in the schoolyard who thinks he's all that when it comes to fighting, going around boasting and saying he could beat Mike Tyson back in the 80s. Sure, he might have been the local tough guy, but he would get his clock cleaned by the best fighters in the school if he challenged them. And, if somehow he ran into craz-- Iron Mike, he'd wet his pants and just never utter a peep about fighting him. They're just all talk to show off locally.

SI

I would be more concerned about NK perfecting nukes and ballistics and selling the technology (or finished products) to nations willing to bomb Israel.

[SteveMax58]

I mean, how is this anything more than the kid in the schoolyard who thinks he's all that when it comes to fighting, going around boasting and saying he could beat Mike Tyson back in the 80s. Sure, he might have been the local tough guy, but he would get his clock cleaned by the best fighters in the school if he challenged them. And, if somehow he ran into craz-- Iron Mike, he'd wet his pants and just never utter a peep about fighting him. They're just all talk to show off locally.

SI

I can only speak for my own opinion...but it isn't that NK is likely to launch nukes at anybody. To your analogy...it would be that same kid boasting silly rhetoric but deciding to hit the weakling kid in the corner because he cant take on the big guys.

S Korea and Japan are the 2 that need be most concerned...these are US allies and may get the brunt of NK's military chest-pounding in order to blackmail us (the US & other wealthy countries) into doing what they want. I don't think that's a very far-flung idea to think that NK might be inclined to launch a missile or 2 over Japan or into s Korea to show their intentions. This does not even account for the potetnial for NK to sell their nuke technology to other countries which can be considered "not-aligned" with US/Allies interests.

The alternative view of "let NK have nukes because we have them so we're just hypocrites" arguement is not that we invade or launch some sort of attack...I'm just pointing out that ignoring such rhetoric is not wise. We (the collective world) have been down the path of blowing off rhetoric in the past from leaders with much less capability. I think taking this rhetoric into account when determining sanctions and action is quite necessary to ensuring a reasonable standard of resolution and diplomacy in the future, when other situations arise.

[EagleFan]

Let's flashback to 1939:

France (aka: Hammer?): Please Marshal Rydz-Smigly do not mobilize your troops. Ignore that Germany has amassed troops at your border, there is still a diplomatic solution. You are being tricked and bullied by the UK into believing that Germany is a threat.

[CamEdwards]

Let's flashback to 1939:

France (aka: Hammer?): Please Marshal Rydz-Smigly do not mobilize your troops. Ignore that Germany has amassed troops at your border, there is still a diplomatic solution. You are being tricked and bullied by the UK into believing that Germany is a threat.

Hey, I already called him Neville Chamberlain's grandson. No fair calling him France!

[Hammer]

Its not smart to pidgeon hole people EagleFan/Cam, you don't know me. Don't pretend you do. Don't put words in my mouth. Read ALL of my posts, before making judgements. I am the one discussing the possibility of a Pearl Harbour attack earlier in this thread. I don't underestimate the consequences of what could happen, my concern is the best way to avoid that scenario and not to unduly aggravate the situation.

With Russia and China appearing onside the U.S. just needs to step back. Thank goodness Obama is in office. I completely agree with the defensive measures the U.S. have taken to this point, but really they must leave it there. The old tact really can't work any longer, there are too many powerful countries in the world.

[CamEdwards]

Its not smart to pidgeon hole people EagleFan/Cam, you don't know me. Don't pretend you do. Don't put words in my mouth. Read ALL of my posts, before making judgements. I am the one discussing the possibility of a Pearl Harbour attack earlier in this thread. I don't underestimate the consequences of what could happen, my concern is the best way to avoid that scenario and not to unduly aggravate the situation.

With Russia and China appearing onside the U.S. just needs to step back. Thank goodness Obama is in office. I completely agree with the defensive measures the U.S. have taken to this point, but really they must leave it there. The old tact really can't work any longer, there are too many powerful countries in the world.

I've not put words in your mouth, I have read all your comments, and I feel completely comfortable with my judgment of your foreign policy philosophy.

[DanGarion]

Nuke or no nuke, if they launch a missile at the US, that is an attack on the US and thus is means for retaliation.

[rowech]

Its not smart to pidgeon hole people EagleFan/Cam, you don't know me. Don't pretend you do. Don't put words in my mouth. Read ALL of my posts, before making judgements. I am the one discussing the possibility of a Pearl Harbour attack earlier in this thread. I don't underestimate the consequences of what could happen, my concern is the best way to avoid that scenario and not to unduly aggravate the situation.

With Russia and China appearing onside the U.S. just needs to step back. Thank goodness Obama is in office. I completely agree with the defensive measures the U.S. have taken to this point, but really they must leave it there. The old tact really can't work any longer, there are too many powerful countries in the world.

And if they do send a missle in Hawaii's direction but then send it into the ocean just before getting "too close"? Do we wait for everyone else then? Do we have to wait until one actually hits us?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Thank goodness Obama is in office.

Yeah, Britain has proved to be a great judge of what a good leader is of late. I'm guessing Obama would look good compared with who Britain elected.

[Klinglerware]

Not sure why French military capability is so summarily dismissed. If you look at the record, France actually has a rather interventionist foreign policy. Even in recent years, the French have shown quite a willingness to utilize it's long range military power projection capabilities when it suits their interests. And actually, the French are probably even worse than the Americans when it comes to aligning with other nations before they do use military force.

I guess that's probably where the disconnect lies--the political interests of even democracies do not necessarily coincide. I think that differences in policy worldview also have some influence here: the French still tend to view the world under a strict realpolitik lens (so they will make decisions overwhelmingly on traditional interest and capability calculi), while American foreign policy has been increasingly influenced by an ideas-based theoretical worldview since the end of the cold war, culminating in the Bush II administration decision-making style where rational interests were still considered, but perhaps not as an overriding factor as it had been in years past.

[Ryan S]

Yeah, Britain has proved to be a great judge of what a good leader is of late. I'm guessing Obama would look good compared with who Britain elected.

We did not vote for him. He was appointed PM after the election and has led his party to historic polling lows.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

We did not vote for him. He was appointed PM after the election and has led his party to historic polling lows.

And who appointed him? The people the majority voted for.

[JPhillips]

And if they do send a missle in Hawaii's direction but then send it into the ocean just before getting "too close"? Do we wait for everyone else then? Do we have to wait until one actually hits us?

Are you willing to sacrifice Seoul over a conventional missile that didn't hit the U.S.?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Are you willing to sacrifice Seoul over a conventional missile that didn't hit the U.S.?

I'm more than willing to sacrifice Pyongang, Hamhung, Chongjin, Nampo, Sinuiju, Wonsan, Phyongsong, Sariwon, Haeju, Kanggye, Kimchaek, Hyesan, Kaesong, and Songnim. At least for starters. Well more accurately that's what the NK need to know they're sacrificing if they launch so much as an M-80 in the general direction of Hawaii.

But the question that really matters is whether the Chinese are willing to sacrfice Beijing over North Korea.

[Wolfpack]

I'm more than willing to sacrifice Pyongang, Hamhung, Chongjin, Nampo, Sinuiju, Wonsan, Phyongsong, Sariwon, Haeju, Kanggye, Kimchaek, Hyesan, Kaesong, and Songnim. At least for starters. Well more accurately that's what the NK need to know they're sacrificing if they launch so much as an M-80 in the general direction of Hawaii.

But the question that really matters is whether the Chinese are willing to sacrfice Beijing over North Korea.

"So we lose a million or two."

[sterlingice]

I would be more concerned about NK perfecting nukes and ballistics and selling the technology (or finished products) to nations willing to bomb Israel.

That is definitely the worry in my mind. But you can't just level a country because they might some day sell something to a rogue state.

SI

[RainMaker]

Why do I have a feeling that those who want to enforce this militarily are the ones who won't be enlisting when it happens?

[Hammer]

We did not vote for him. He was appointed PM after the election and has led his party to historic polling lows.


I think Browns biggest problem is that he doesn't have charisma and a winning smile. Most people can't see past that. He seems do have done a very solid job dealing with the recession.

[Dutch]

That is definitely the worry in my mind. But you can't just level a country because they might some day sell something to a rogue state.

SI

READ: Let's sit back and do nothing until Tel Aviv is levelled.

Really?

[rowech]

Are you willing to sacrifice Seoul over a conventional missile that didn't hit the U.S.?

If they fire anything even close to us, as I said, they should have a boatload of missles up their ass within 30 minutes. Period. I'm sick of watching these little countries do their thing...if they want to keep talking, fine but as soon as one of them does ANYTHING remotely directed toward the US...even if it's just to show us they can, we should show them what we can do right back.

I will contend we have never seen what the true US military is capable of doing. They see struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan and think we aren't that powerful not understanding both of this situations are a half-assed attempt at a war. But if someone tries to see how powerful we really are then I'm all for showing them.

[dawgfan]

I will contend we have never seen what the true US military is capable of doing. They see struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan and think we aren't that powerful not understanding both of this situations are a half-assed attempt at a war. But if someone tries to see how powerful we really are then I'm all for showing them.
I think you are confusing "keeping the peace" with "war". Short of using nukes, I don't think there was any holding back or "half-assing" in the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[jeff061]

In both Iraq and Afghanistan the leadership was removed relatively early and easily. The long term plan may have left a lot to be desired, but I'm not sure that matters so much to the Taliban and Saddam.

[JPhillips]

If they fire anything even close to us, as I said, they should have a boatload of missles up their ass within 30 minutes. Period. I'm sick of watching these little countries do their thing...if they want to keep talking, fine but as soon as one of them does ANYTHING remotely directed toward the US...even if it's just to show us they can, we should show them what we can do right back.

I will contend we have never seen what the true US military is capable of doing. They see struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan and think we aren't that powerful not understanding both of this situations are a half-assed attempt at a war. But if someone tries to see how powerful we really are then I'm all for showing them.

That still won't save Seoul. The NKs have so much artillery that we can't possibly stop them from leveling Seoul without Jon's dream of a full nuclear strike.(which would, of course, get the Chinese and probably Russians to fire nukes and wipe us all out, but I guess that's a feature and not a bug for a guy that wants several billion fewer people)

The reality is that there's likely no scenario where a military strike doesn't end in an all out war on the Korean peninsula. Given that reality, we need to be responsible about waving our dick around. A threatening missile shot that results in no causalities would certainly demand a level of response, but firing a bunch of missiles will result in thousands of deaths of our allies.

[sterlingice]

READ: Let's sit back and do nothing until Tel Aviv is levelled.

Really?

Oh, I'm sorry- apparently I wasn't clear. Yeah, let's just lob some of ours in there to get it done. Hell, let's just eliminate Israel because that would make the Middle East that much more peaceful :rolleyes:

While we're putting words in others' mouths, I'm sure you're in favor of going in and occupying another country for the next 10 years.

I know it's silly, particularly when we have economic issues, to perhaps lay off being the most extreme versions of the world's policemen and try to use diplomacy to pressure China to act either directly or indirectly through Japan since its in their best interests to not let North Korea arm.

SI

[Dutch]

Oh, I'm sorry- apparently I wasn't clear. Yeah, let's just lob some of ours in there to get it done. Hell, let's just eliminate Israel because that would make the Middle East that much more peaceful :rolleyes:

I don't believe you are really this bad at holding a debate, but to be fair, I was implicitly mocking your portrayal of me wanting to "level the country" when I said no such thing.

While we're putting words in others' mouths, I'm sure you're in favor of going in and occupying another country for the next 10 years.

What I actually said was --> "I would be more concerned about NK perfecting nukes and ballistics and selling the technology (or finished products) to nations willing to bomb Israel."

I'm putting words in your mouth? Nowhere did I say we should "level the country" nor did I suggest that. I have actually been pretty consistent in saying we should not take NK's capabilities lightly (by incorrectly thinking all they are really trying to do is bomb Hawaii).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't believe you are really this bad at holding a debate, but to be fair, I was implicitly mocking your portrayal of me wanting to "level the country" when I said no such thing.

He probably confused you with me.

I'm the one who wants them bombed forward to the Stone Age if they shoot anything bigger than a Pop Cap in the general direction of Hawaii.

[sterlingice]

What I actually said was --> "I would be more concerned about NK perfecting nukes and ballistics and selling the technology (or finished products) to nations willing to bomb Israel."

I'm putting words in your mouth? Nowhere did I say we should "level the country" nor did I suggest that. I have actually been pretty consistent in saying we should not take NK's capabilities lightly (by incorrectly thinking all they are really trying to do is bomb Hawaii).

Your exact response was, quoting my previous one was

READ: Let's sit back and do nothing until Tel Aviv is levelled.

What the heck is that but putting words in my mouth??

SI

[Dutch]

Your exact response was, quoting my previous one was



What the heck is that but putting words in my mouth??

SI

*sigh*

One more time for ya.

I don't believe you are really this bad at holding a debate, but to be fair, I was implicitly mocking your portrayal of me wanting to "level the country" when I said no such thing.

It was in response to your nonsense. Don't post nonsense if you aren't willing to be ribbed about it. Obviously you did not like it one bit. So think next time before you post nonsense and stop making up imaginary crap and then argue against said imaginations.

Stick to what is actually written and discuss that so we can stay on topic.

[Autumn]

The reality is that there's likely no scenario where a military strike doesn't end in an all out war on the Korean peninsula. Given that reality, we need to be responsible about waving our dick around. A threatening missile shot that results in no causalities would certainly demand a level of response, but firing a bunch of missiles will result in thousands of deaths of our allies.

Exactly, and this is why our response to NK is always more measured than the hawks would like to see it. Not only are we not capable currently of engaging in a full-scale conflict anywhere in the world other than Iraq and Afghanistan, the instigation of a conflict would instantly mean an incredible tragedy for South Korea. I hope we haven't become so defensive about our military prowess that we're willing to throw away lives so easily.

In some ways North Korea has us over a barrel and we just have to accept that. That what comes from living in the real world where no one, even a superpower, always gets what they want.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Exactly, and this is why our response to NK is always more measured than the hawks would like to see it.

Do you actually believe that's more about South Korea than about us not wanting to deal with China? How ... interesting. I can't say I've ever heard anyone even posit that theory before.

[Autumn]

Do you actually believe that's more about South Korea than about us not wanting to deal with China? How ... interesting. I can't say I've ever heard anyone even posit that theory before.

Yes, I do, and I certainly did not invent the idea myself. I don't think the U.S. has reached the point where they're willing to let millions of civilians die in the capital city of an ally. Even if you want to be heartless about it, that's not good geopolitical mojo.

[Autumn]

Here is a comment on the fact from Stratfor (www.stratfor.com), for instance.

North Korea, on the other hand, has held downtown Seoul (just across the demilitarized zone) at risk for generations with one of the highest concentrations of deployed artillery, artillery rockets and short-range ballistic missiles on the planet. From the outside, Pyongyang is perceived as unpredictable enough that any potential pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities is too risky not because of some newfound nuclear capability, but because of Pyongyang’s capability to turn the South Korean capital city into a proverbial “sea of fire” via conventional means. A nuclear North Korea, the world has now seen, is not sufficient alone to risk renewed war on the Korean Peninsula.

Certainly there is more to international politics than that, and China has a big role, but I think this element is underestimated, as I've said earlier.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Even if you want to be heartless about it, that's not good geopolitical mojo.

And if NK is allowed to do as they please, what value does that ally actually have? They exist in that role as a potential base of operations in the region (and even that value has grown increasingly questionable over the past couple of decades, I think the last estimate I saw is that it would take less than 8 hours for all US forces in South Korea to be wiped out by a well planned & sufficiently fortified attack) but if we aren't going to be operating in the region then what value do they have left?

And if NK launching a missile toward the U.S. isn't grounds to operate in the region then frankly, none will ever exist.

[Fighter of Foo]

Am I the only person that finds the idea of North Korea launching a missle at Hawaii absolutely fucking ridiculous? This is probably one of the dumber things I've read all year. I expected to see a flame war as that's the only way I figured this would still be at all on topic at 120+ posts.

[DanGarion]

Am I the only person that finds the idea of North Korea launching a missle at Hawaii absolutely fucking ridiculous? This is probably one of the dumber things I've read all year. I expected to see a flame war as that's the only way I figured this would still be at all on topic at 120+ posts.

Oh believe me, I'm with you, but if anyone was to do it, it would be that quackjob that would...

[rowech]

Am I the only person that finds the idea of North Korea launching a missle at Hawaii absolutely fucking ridiculous? This is probably one of the dumber things I've read all year. I expected to see a flame war as that's the only way I figured this would still be at all on topic at 120+ posts.

And for how long did we find the idea of a terrorist attack on US soil absolutely ridiculous?

[DaddyTorgo]

And for how long did we find the idea of a terrorist attack on US soil absolutely ridiculous?

NOUN...VERB...9/11.

:D

[Fighter of Foo]

And for how long did we find the idea of a terrorist attack on US soil absolutely ridiculous?

Not very. That's infinitely more plausible than the idea that a bass-ackwards country with no economy or revenue is going to design a missle that's going to fly 4500 miles across the pacific ocean and actually hit somewhere in Hawaii.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not very. That's infinitely more plausible than the idea that a bass-ackwards country with no economy or revenue is going to design a missle that's going to fly 4500 miles across the pacific ocean and actually hit somewhere in Hawaii.

Actually we covered that up the thread somewhere.

I think the consensus was that the biggest danger to Hawaii was that NK would aim for a random spot in the ocean & hit Hawaii by accident.

[Fighter of Foo]

Actually we covered that up the thread somewhere.

I think the consensus was that the biggest danger to Hawaii was that NK would aim for a random spot in the ocean & hit Hawaii by accident.

Thanks. Apologies for not reading the thread.

Of all the things in the world to possibly worry about, this is most definitely not one of them.

[dawgfan]

Not very. That's infinitely more plausible than the idea that a bass-ackwards country with no economy or revenue is going to design a missle that's going to fly 4500 miles across the pacific ocean and actually hit somewhere in Hawaii.
I don't mean to sound flippant or callous to the residents of Hawai'i, but it's not entirely relevant if NK were to hit Hawai'i with a missle, but the fact that they tried to do so.

Obviously nobody wants to see Hawai'i hit with a nuke, but the response from the U.S. should be the same regardless of where the missile lands if it's launched with the intent to hit.

[Dutch]

Not very. That's infinitely more plausible than the idea that a bass-ackwards country with no economy or revenue is going to design a missle that's going to fly 4500 miles across the pacific ocean and actually hit somewhere in Hawaii.

I'd love to think they are idiots too, but they developed nuclear weapons. If that was possible, making a transport is going to be a snap, comparatively.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obviously nobody wants to see Hawai'i hit with a nuke, but the response from the U.S. should be the same regardless of where the missile lands if it's launched with the intent to hit.

Exactly. Just because they don't know what they're doing doesn't mean we can ignore the intent.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well, I guess the missile thing didn't work out. Kim has moved on to denial of service attacks with much better results...............

North Korea May Be Behind Wave of Cyberattacks - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530645,00.html)

[flere-imsaho]

Are you willing to sacrifice Seoul over a conventional missile that didn't hit the U.S.?

That's really the bottom line, and is what makes dealing with NK so difficult.

But the question that really matters is whether the Chinese are willing to sacrfice Beijing over North Korea.

China won't get into a shooting war with the U.S. Our military may have its problems, but it is easily head-and-shoulders the best at state-vs-state warfare. Any half-way rational country knows how quickly the U.S. military would crush their own military like a bug.

The question that really matters is to what extent the U.S. can operate to curb NK's proliferation activities (sanctions, freezing finances, interdicting ships, etc...) without provoking an overt response from NK and/or China. The real problem is that China seems to not care about NK's proliferation activities, and neither (really) does Russia, so the bulk of the non-proliferation activity has to fall on the U.S. (with some token support from allies).

Having said that, one would think the U.S. could take a more muscular stance about NK's proliferation activities, doing more things like interdiction of shipping to basically force China into a position of trying to control their pet rogue state.

And of course this is all further complicated by the fact that the South Koreans view the North Koreans as part of the same country that they'd like to see get reunited someday. So merely storming over the border and killing everyone doesn't solve the problem, either.

READ: Let's sit back and do nothing until Tel Aviv is levelled.

Arguably this is exactly what was done vis-a-vis Pakistan, who actually sold (through a rogue operator running their nuclear program) technology on the black market. Of course since then they've had a political revolution and are playing ball, so maybe it's an argument for a wait-and-see approach? I don't know....

I'd love to think they are idiots too, but they developed nuclear weapons. If that was possible, making a transport is going to be a snap, comparatively.

Actually, my understanding (which could certainly be faulty) is that the "difficult" parts of the whole nuclear thing are a) obtaining and refining the raw materials (especially without notice) and b) the delivery system but not particularly making the device itself. The device itself is pretty old technology at this point.

[Dutch]

Actually, my understanding (which could certainly be faulty) is that the "difficult" parts of the whole nuclear thing are a) obtaining and refining the raw materials (especially without notice) and b) the delivery system but not particularly making the device itself. The device itself is pretty old technology at this point.

To acquire stockpiles like the US, Russia, and China? You are correct. No way anybody else gets to nuclear super-power status without a good reason not to fight over it. The ability to continue to arm nuclear weapons? I think they can crank out between 2-10 a year? I might be wrong on that assumption though.

Also, a delivery system like the US, Russia, or China have? That will be difficult, but they are in fact trying and making some ground in that realm. Not bad. Let's not forget though that we bombed Japan in 1945 with one by using a B-24 bomber. And Israel flies over enemy airspace all the time by faking out enemy ATC and radar. With a country like NK, it's probably not a bad idea to think outside of the box a bit on what they are trying to accomplish.

I wonder if a nuclear bomb in a plane being flown around is detectable?

[flere-imsaho]

My point was simply that the development of a reliable intercontinental delivery system was, in fact, a greater engineering challenge than mining and refining nuclear raw material or assembling the actual bomb. In response to:

I'd love to think they are idiots too, but they developed nuclear weapons. If that was possible, making a transport is going to be a snap, comparatively.

This is not to say that they couldn't, at one point, finally make a reliable ICBM. I'm just saying that just because they've made a nuclear bomb doesn't mean they'll have a reliable delivery system in a matter of years.

The more you think about it, though, the more the ICBM thing seems like posturing. If they really wanted to bomb Japan they (presumably) could put a device on a "commercial" jetliner going there and detonate it upon landing. But maybe you can detect whether or not a jetliner has a bomb aboard from distance, I don't know.

Having said that, the biggest threat, of course, is not that they'll bomb Japan, South Korea or the U.S., but that they'll sell secrets and/or material to other rogue states, or non-state actors. But I've already gone over that in my previous post.

I guess I don't see much of a situation where their use of a nuclear bomb is very likely, since one of the almost certain outcomes would be the removal of their support (political, economic, etc...) from China and even possibly an occupation by China. Then again, we have no idea how stable (or not) the regime is.

[Dutch]

Having said that, the biggest threat, of course, is not that they'll bomb Japan, South Korea or the U.S., but that they'll sell secrets and/or material to other rogue states, or non-state actors. But I've already gone over that in my previous post.

We are on the same page. It's my biggest concern as well because a bomb going off in Israel will set off a spectacular chain of events.

But no matter how hard it is for the ballistics side of things, if we handle the NK with kid gloves, they will develop their program.

[gstelmack]

They could just load it on a truck and drive it to Baltimore stadium faked up like a soda machine...

[molson]

I wish 30+ nations could somehow secretly agree on a regime change and get it over with some random Monday morning. They wouldn't know what happened. Then work towards a unified Korea.

[flere-imsaho]

I wish 30+ nations could somehow secretly agree on a regime change and get it over with some random Monday morning. They wouldn't know what happened. Then work towards a unified Korea.

It wouldn't even take that. The whole reunification could be achieved by the U.S. and China alone.

[molson]

It wouldn't even take that. The whole reunification could be achieved by the U.S. and China alone.

As a practical matter yes, though it'd just be cool if the world as a whole just agreed and did it in an instant. It should be like those movies where aliens attack, and everybody on earth is suddenly on the same side. That's kind of what North Korea is, a weird alien.

Where it would get messy is you had months of open discussion on it, and give North Korea a chance for wacky hijinx and resistance. I wish I could wake up tomorrow and have already have happend.

[Edward64]

The crazy leader isn't looking very good in the recent pictures. Said his brother-in-law was the one doing the day to day. Hopefully, when the crazy leader dies, it'll get better.

[molson]

The crazy leader isn't looking very good in the recent pictures. Said his brother-in-law was the one doing the day to day. Hopefully, when the crazy leader dies, it'll get better.

He's already picked his craziest son to take over (I assume craziest is the criteria that was utilized).

[Edward64]

He's already picked his craziest son to take over (I assume craziest is the criteria that was utilized).
Its supposedly his crazy youngest son (23?) and he bypassed the crazy son #1 and #2. My best is there will be a crazy internal power struggle.

[fantom1979]

They could just load it on a truck and drive it to Baltimore stadium faked up like a soda machine...

It was Denver Stadium in the book ;)

[sterlingice]

I wish 30+ nations could somehow secretly agree on a regime change and get it over with some random Monday morning. They wouldn't know what happened. Then work towards a unified Korea.

Sounds like a plan we can all agree upon. Tho, how about a Saturday afternoon when the news cycle is asleep?

SI

[Dutch]

Sounds like a plan we can all agree upon. Tho, how about a Saturday afternoon when the news cycle is asleep?

SI

Michael Jackson, Pictures of Obama staring at chicks assess, making fun of Sarah Palin...the media is already asleep.

[sterlingice]

Michael Jackson, Pictures of Obama staring at chicks assess, making fun of Sarah Palin...the media is already asleep.

Point.

Yeah, what did happen to the good ol' days of us deposing dictators in their sleep?

With a 24 hour news cycle, if you can get some other countries onboard, that would help, tho.

SI

[Galaril]

Interesting discussion on this topic. Just my two cents:
More than likely the major reason we have not cracked down on NK is more to do Seoul AND Tokyo being turned into a parking lot than being wary of dealing with China. When you look at the two cities mentioed with populations both somewhere in the 15-18 million people during working hours the death tolls even from conventional arms would be frightful to say the least (I had in the past seen estimates of between 1-2 million dead in Seoul alone in a prolonged artillery barrage.
-Reunification is a sticky issue with the fact the under 40 generation and especially under 30 S Korean population(including my own wife partly) is hugely sympathetic to the North and agrees with alot of there socialist ideas on the economic side. One of the biggest fears we had was the number of estimated South Korean soldiers (uni kids mostly) that would desert to the other side to fight the Americans. The point being let's say for argument sake regime change occurs and reunification like Germany in a type Federation government system is implemented. Next thing that happens is the northerns are cheap, cheap labor for the southerns. But, that being said you throw 25 million north Koreans into the voting population of the south they will not be elected Korean versions of Obama but more likely a new mini china is created. A country who's ultimate goal from both North and South is kicking the Japanese ass half way across the pacific.
-Lastly one thing that is true China would more than likely sooner invde and occupy North Korea than all the US and it's allies to turn the North into a democratic state. No way no how is that happening with bombs dropping everywhere. IMHO.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, what did happen to the good ol' days of us deposing dictators in their sleep?

Once upon a time you could do this and have it done with before it hit the morning newspapers. Now you'd be lucky to get the operation even started before some yahoo talked about it on Twitter.