[QUOTE=Monty]
Read this article.
I didn’t say accurate. I said efficient.
[/QUOTE]
BTW, I admit I may’ve misunderstood the point of that article–I thought it was a bit long-winded for a short article.
[QUOTE=nameless]
You know, if we hadn’t spent all that time, money, and manpower in Iraq, we’d probably be in a much better position, diplomatically and militarily, to deal with a nation which was actually developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. It’s a damned shame.
[/QUOTE]
How so? We have troops at their front door for the express purpose of preventing them from invading SK. The last 2 diplomatic attempts went as follows:
- If you promise not to build missiles we will launch your satellites.
- If you promise not to build nuclear weapons we will build you 2 nuclear power plants.
What military/political solution have we forgone because of Iraq? I suppose we could offer to invade ourselves if he promises not to nuke anybody.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
I still harken back to that speech where our Prez defines the axis of evil as Afghanostan, Iraq, Iran and n. Korea. Then we attack Afghanistan. Then we attack Iraq.
[/quote]
Afghanistan wasn’t included in the Axis-- just the other three.
You might be able to make a case for Iran’s situation, but NK’s quest for nukes long predates Bush’s presidency.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
How so? We have troops at their front door for the express purpose of preventing them from invading SK. The last 2 diplomatic attempts went as follows:
- If you promise not to build missiles we will launch your satellites.
- If you promise not to build nuclear weapons we will build you 2 nuclear power plants.
What military/political solution have we forgone because of Iraq? I suppose we could offer to invade ourselves if he promises not to nuke anybody.
[/QUOTE]
We have not, because of Iraq, “foregone” any military action against Korea; what we have done, because of Iraq, is effectively ruled it out as an option.
I disagree that it is currently an option whether we are engaged in Iraq or not. That is, it remains forbidden unless we’re willing to risk a couple hundred thousand South Korean civilians for American security.
what loopydude said.
The only thing we can do is isolate NK and let them spend themselves into collapse like the Soviet Union did. It will be German unification all over again.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
The only thing we can do is isolate NK and let them spend themselves into collapse like the Soviet Union did. It will be German unification all over again.
[/QUOTE]
I hope so. My WAG, it will be a whole lot bloodier. 
[QUOTE=jeffrice]
t we try to shoot down the Korean missiles, to prove to them how hopeless their missile program is. I’m disappointed we didn’t do that, but several posts in this thread have strongly suggested it just ain’t very likely
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t sell our missile defense so short. We have really no reason to claim that we ‘shot’ it down, what purpose would it serve. I’m not saying that we did, but I beleive it’s possible and also it’s in our best interest to not say we did.
To shoot a missile down you don’t have to hit it with a projectile, but can use masers (microwave lasers) to burn out the missiles electronics, and we CAN correct from atmospheric distortions/attenuations, or use a EMP pules missle near theirs, no direct hit needed.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
To shoot a missile down you don’t have to hit it with a projectile, but can use masers (microwave lasers) to burn out the missiles electronics, and we CAN correct from atmospheric distortions/attenuations, or use a EMP pules missle near theirs, no direct hit needed.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have citations establishing that we have any of this technology remotely near deployment? A quick scan through Wikipedia suggests that there are prototype EMP weapons, but nothing near the scalpel-like efficiency with which you suggest we could bring down an ICBM. At first glance, it seems to me you may as well have suggested we place railgun platforms in space.
[QUOTE=nameless]
At first glance, it seems to me you may as well have suggested we place railgun platforms in space.
[/QUOTE]
:eek:
Shhh! That’s classified!
Next come the Logs from Og!
Now Bush is calling the missile tests an [url=]“opportunity” to lean on NK.
Quite true, George.
Has it occurred to you we have the option of doing neither?
Sorry, here’s the link.
Interesting side note: I was watching a panel discussion on PBS News regarding NK’s missile tests and they seemed to agree that it was a 2-way loyalty test between Kim Jong IL and the military. The coordinated launch of missiles from multiple sites was an internal test of the military. And the event itself was a political test of Kim Jong IL’s continued support of the military complex.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Interesting side note: I was watching a panel discussion on PBS News regarding NK’s missile tests and they seemed to agree that it was a 2-way loyalty test between Kim Jong IL and the military. The coordinated launch of missiles from multiple sites was an internal test of the military. And the event itself was a political test of Kim Jong IL’s continued support of the military complex.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. If that test should fail in any way – what happens then?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Interesting. If that test should fail in any way – what happens then?
[/QUOTE]
The same thing that happens to a Rat inside a Blender, if the history of Stalinist states runs true to form.
How is N. Korea paying for this? they are practically bankrupt. So I think Bush is wise to ignore them. Let the Chinese (who are propping up this regime) pay the bills-I certainly wouldn’t give them a penny. Any chance that a revolution could break out? I’d love to see Kim Il Jong’s body hanging from a lamppost!
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Any chance that a revolution could break out? I’d love to see Kim Il Jong’s body hanging from a lamppost!
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, as bad as KJI is, he’s actually probably one of the more moderate voices in NK. There’s no guarantee that whoever would replace KJI after his head winds up on a stake would be any more moderate; in fact, there’s plenty of indications that there are a lot of hard-line elements who are far more extreme than Kim Jong Il.
When you think about it, a good question to ask is “Why doesn’ t NK just attack SK?” What do they have to lose? They’re starving now. KJI’s regime is in trouble now. Reading between the lines, I do believe that NK has at least one functional nuke. You don’t have to read between the lines to know that it has biological and chemical weapons. NK defectors have testified to working in facilities testing the weapons out on political prisoners (and those were gruesome stories).
So far, KJI doesn’t posture about using these weapons against SK. But NK’s military sure has, and on television, too. It’s an open secret that the NK military loathes KJI. If KJI actually does wind up leading North Korea from the head up, and his successor is wearing a military uniform instead of a business suit, watch out.
No, from what I could see, a coup would do far more harm than good. Even if the turmoil wouldn’t spill into SK right away, it’s never a good thing when your neighboring country is dangerously unstable. That causes problems all its own.
I agree. The NK leadership is a kind of fiendish bargain that Iraq probably should have been: The devil you know. I didn’t take a genius to figure out a destabilized Iraq would be bad for the ME (alas, the collective practical IQ of our leadership is somewhere in the low double-digits), and likewise, a destabilized NK is bad for NE Asia. For the present, the DPRK is contained, and though not completely defanged, they probably pose no threat to SK so long as they’re not attacked. They simply can’t be strong enough, in such dire economic straits, to even think about aggression without provocation. Their armament is equal parts defense and blackmail, and for all his faults, KJI has done a brilliant job manipulating his adversaries with his shrewd gamesmanship.
They rattle sabres, the West rattles a few back, KJI squeezes some more aid out of somebody, wash and repeat. It’s bad, but the alternative is worse without a global will to depose the NK leadership and commit to a Marshall-plan-sized reconfiguration of the Korean peninsula. No such will exists, and probably never shall. So it’s probably best to just leave the viper in his nest, and let him spit occasionally.
[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
=When you think about it, a good question to ask is “Why doesn’ t NK just attack SK?”
Because they know perfectly well they can’t win. They can destroy Seoul easily, maybe a whole lot more of SK, but they can’t hope their own government will survive a war.