Full Version: N. Korea to Display Nuclear Arms
Hello GodBlessUSA - please avoid double posting. If you were the last person to post in a thread and have more to add, you merely need to go in & edit. (After 12 hours have passed, however, your edit window closes, so go ahead & make a new post). Thanks 
QUOTE(GodBlessUSA @ Nov 13 2003, 09:23 PM)
The U.S. South Korea and Japan have to attack first and North Korea has to believe it is not coming. The United States must strike first and knock of the artillery pointed at Seol and any other defense, especially missle sites. SHOCK AND AWW X 10!
But we would be seen as the antagonist and that would justify any response North Korea makes. Of course, the situation is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type deal so i would have to take you suggestion
QUOTE
The U.S. South Korea and Japan have to attack first and North Korea has to believe it is not coming. The United States must strike first and knock of the artillery pointed at Seol and any other defense, especially missle sites. SHOCK AND AWW X 10!
What happens when North Korea hits South Korea with a nuclear weapon and sends their millions of troops south? Another Korean war would not be a walk in the park like Operation Iraqi Freedom. The world economy would take a huge hit, millions of Koreans would die and many Americans. That is not the price I want to pay to be sure North Korea won't invade the South without us first knowing. If the Cold War has taught us anything it is that war is never inevitable. We can't risk our troops lives knowing there is a very large chance we will never fight a war in Korea.
We can't keep Kimmy contained for long. I don't think he will be beaten with contaiment like the USSR was. He's too unstable. He's got nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
If we have to, we will strike on him
If we have to, we will strike on him
QUOTE
The world economy would take a huge hit
Huge? No, But it would take a substantial hit, as Seoul happens to be a major economic center in South East Asia. However, South Korea's strategic significance is essential. The first Korean war was fought primarily to deter a pro-soviet movement on the Korean peninsula, to allow the soviets access to the Japanese mainland, archipelerengo. South Korea, even today, serves as an essential strategic military point for American forces in south-east Asia, and will play a predominant role in the rise of a new regional power, China.
Iraq, on a geo-political mapping, serves as an exceptional addition to American strategic progress in the Middle-East.
Click here to see large copyrighted image removed from post.
One of Al-quida's primary motives for American resentment were forces stationned in Saudi Arabia. With the war in Iraq, it was necessary to mobilize forces in Saudi Arabia to re-enforce such a conflict. We also now have an excellent staging point for any future dealings with Syria and Iran, which are next on the American agenda, not necessarily militarily, such as Iran, which is best suited CIA expertise.
All of this, to say, geo-political reasoning and progress are the primary reasons for not pursuing military action against North Korea.
QUOTE
If we have to, we will strike on him
"sigh". A little roudy for war, now are we? Maybe thinking with one's head would be a little better then with your guns, in certain situations, such as these, which can be diffused through such tactics as is being pursued.
Note: Large copyrighted images are prohibited per §B-V of the Rules.
North Korea with a nuclear arsenal is a major threat to all of Asia. Even the Japanese cannot ignore the threat since NK missiles can reach them (and the US). If a nuke is tested we have some hard decisions to make. We are already pulling troops back south of Soul which would be totally destroyed in the opening hours of a war (minuets if a nuclear war).
The real danger is NK developing a nuclear warhead. We may need to move first if this happens since we have NO missile defense system in place yet – thanks to Bill Clinton.
The real danger is NK developing a nuclear warhead. We may need to move first if this happens since we have NO missile defense system in place yet – thanks to Bill Clinton.
To talk of North Korea is a nonchalant way is both ignorant and very dangerous.
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
QUOTE(Paul Doran @ Dec 7 2003, 06:23 PM)
To talk of North Korea is a nonchalant way is both ignorant and very dangerous.
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
Just because they have a 1,000,000 man army doesn't mean they are efficent. Saddam had thousands upon thousands of Republican Guard Units ready for a conflict before the 1st Gulf War and look what happened....they all got whooped and we only lost 148 troops in that whole war.
Besides, i think that there will be a round of air bombing by US and whoever would join the war to soften them up them send in ground troops, along with everything they got and then some, we could waste them. Softening them up will give the troops that go in a break.
Also, it would be obvious that North Korea will use nukes first. If they do, then they will obviously be condemed by all nations.
The US will stand up and say "We tried to negotiate with ya...guess we'll have our Tomahawk missiles do the talkin now"
QUOTE(Paul Doran @ Dec 7 2003, 07:23 PM)
To talk of North Korea is a nonchalant way is both ignorant and very dangerous.
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
Who is talking of this country in a nonchalant way? This is one of the most dangerous countries on earth and we need to deal with them but I for one am not interested in giving in to blackmail. They lied to Clinton and got the US to give them food and start a nuclear power plant. Now we discover they were secretly developing nukes right under our noses.
South Korea has strong feelings about how the crisis should be handled. Let’s let them and China sort it out with this lunatic. We lost 33,000 Americans in the last UN disaster on this peninsula and I would not like to see it happen again.
If they cross the line again we should let the South deal with them and if we have to go in we should nuke them off the planet and not waste a single American life on them.
Can I remind people suggesting that China act against the DPRK that the People's Republic of China is its cheif ally, politically and militarily. They have fought to defend North Korea before and their official position is that they would do it again.
The PRC views itself as a rising power that will eventually overtake the United States. Even if the PRC was not allied with the DPRK it would be humiliating to have a forign power invade a state on its boarder (image the PRC invading Canada). They would not tolerate it, they would have no choice but to demonstrate their power, otherwise the loss of prestige would be to great (besides, President Hu would likely be replaced by a hardline Communist if he let such a thing happen).
Not to mention that the DPRK is quite capable of defending itself, its the one reason why the US hasn't invaded it yet.
The PRC views itself as a rising power that will eventually overtake the United States. Even if the PRC was not allied with the DPRK it would be humiliating to have a forign power invade a state on its boarder (image the PRC invading Canada). They would not tolerate it, they would have no choice but to demonstrate their power, otherwise the loss of prestige would be to great (besides, President Hu would likely be replaced by a hardline Communist if he let such a thing happen).
Not to mention that the DPRK is quite capable of defending itself, its the one reason why the US hasn't invaded it yet.
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 8 2003, 02:18 AM)
If they cross the line again we should let the South deal with them and if we have to go in we should nuke them off the planet and not waste a single American life on them.
If the DPRK where nuked it would nuke as many west coast American cities as it has bombs.
The CIA thinks they have 3-6.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Dec 8 2003, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE(Paul Doran @ Dec 7 2003, 06:23 PM)
To talk of North Korea is a nonchalant way is both ignorant and very dangerous.
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
Just because they have a 1,000,000 man army doesn't mean they are efficent. Saddam had thousands upon thousands of Republican Guard Units ready for a conflict before the 1st Gulf War and look what happened....they all got whooped and we only lost 148 troops in that whole war.
Besides, i think that there will be a round of air bombing by US and whoever would join the war to soften them up them send in ground troops, along with everything they got and then some, we could waste them. Softening them up will give the troops that go in a break.
Also, it would be obvious that North Korea will use nukes first. If they do, then they will obviously be condemed by all nations.
The US will stand up and say "We tried to negotiate with ya...guess we'll have our Tomahawk missiles do the talkin now"
You cannot really compare the armies of Saddam and those of North Korea.
The Gulf War was swift and Easy because they surrendered in huge numbers, I dont think the same is likely to happen to North Korea.
It is far too a delicate situation to go in heavy handed, whatsmore how can you jusitify nuking the whole palce and killling millions of innocent people?
QUOTE
If the DPRK where nuked it would nuke as many west coast American cities as it has bombs.
The CIA thinks they have 3-6.
The CIA thinks they have 3-6.
However it doesn't have the missile technology to get a nuclear warhead from North Korea to west coast US. It would bomb Japan instead
QUOTE(Paul Doran @ Dec 8 2003, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Dec 8 2003, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE(Paul Doran @ Dec 7 2003, 06:23 PM)
To talk of North Korea is a nonchalant way is both ignorant and very dangerous.
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
Just because they have a 1,000,000 man army doesn't mean they are efficent. Saddam had thousands upon thousands of Republican Guard Units ready for a conflict before the 1st Gulf War and look what happened....they all got whooped and we only lost 148 troops in that whole war.
Besides, i think that there will be a round of air bombing by US and whoever would join the war to soften them up them send in ground troops, along with everything they got and then some, we could waste them. Softening them up will give the troops that go in a break.
Also, it would be obvious that North Korea will use nukes first. If they do, then they will obviously be condemed by all nations.
The US will stand up and say "We tried to negotiate with ya...guess we'll have our Tomahawk missiles do the talkin now"
You cannot really compare the armies of Saddam and those of North Korea.
The Gulf War was swift and easy because they surrendered in huge numbers, I dont think the same is likely to happen to North Korea.
Wanna bet? The reason their military is so huge is because it is the only way to get a decent meal and money. It's not because they like their leader and are patrotic to their country. You wouldn't believe the massive poverty in that country.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Dec 8 2003, 02:38 PM)
QUOTE(Paul Doran @ Dec 8 2003, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Dec 8 2003, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE(Paul Doran @ Dec 7 2003, 06:23 PM)
To talk of North Korea is a nonchalant way is both ignorant and very dangerous.
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
They have astanding Army of about 1,000,000 troops, if a standard ground war insued a very bloody battle would becaome a reality. Millions of Civilians would probably die, and the US will probaly have the most Causlities of any war since 1945.
Even an outcome as bad as this is not as bad as another possible outcome, and that is the use of Atomic weapons. I neednt go into detail about the danger of these in the hands of an aggressor.
IN short, with such a Military capacity diplomacy is the only option.
I am disgusted at the use Shock & Awe here because I hardly call Seoul going up in smoke anything to awe about at all
Just because they have a 1,000,000 man army doesn't mean they are efficent. Saddam had thousands upon thousands of Republican Guard Units ready for a conflict before the 1st Gulf War and look what happened....they all got whooped and we only lost 148 troops in that whole war.
Besides, i think that there will be a round of air bombing by US and whoever would join the war to soften them up them send in ground troops, along with everything they got and then some, we could waste them. Softening them up will give the troops that go in a break.
Also, it would be obvious that North Korea will use nukes first. If they do, then they will obviously be condemed by all nations.
The US will stand up and say "We tried to negotiate with ya...guess we'll have our Tomahawk missiles do the talkin now"
You cannot really compare the armies of Saddam and those of North Korea.
The Gulf War was swift and easy because they surrendered in huge numbers, I dont think the same is likely to happen to North Korea.
Wanna bet? The reason their military is so huge is because it is the only way to get a decent meal and money. It's not because they like their leader and are patrotic to their country. You wouldn't believe the massive poverty in that country.
You may have a point, but the original problem remains. The War would be bloody and there would be many American casualties, would the American public allow this? I would hazard a guess and say no. Korea spend 33.9% of their GDP on their Military Budget - 5 times the amount of Iraq .They would represent a significant problem to the US if war broke out.
It is also worth noting that today some smoke was coming out of one of North Korea's plants:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3309305.stm
QUOTE(nikachu @ Dec 8 2003, 11:17 AM)
QUOTE
If the DPRK where nuked it would nuke as many west coast American cities as it has bombs.
The CIA thinks they have 3-6.
The CIA thinks they have 3-6.
However it doesn't have the missile technology to get a nuclear warhead from North Korea to west coast US. It would bomb Japan instead
So, would Tokyo, the largest city in the world, be an acceptable loss to invade the DPRK?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/
"While testifying at a Senate committee hearing in Washington, CIA Director George Tenet was asked whether North Korea had a ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. West Coast.
Before answering, Tenet turned to very quickly consult with aides sitting behind him.
"I think the declassified answer, is yes, they can do that," Tenet said."
N Korea has the most extensive system of underground bunker-tunnels in the world. Contrary to Iraq and many other places, they are within rock, and most likely impervious to bunker-busting bombs (of course, the capability of our bombs is classified so I wouldn't know). There is a high likelihood the N Koreans expect to survive a nuclear attack, and are quite prepared for that potentiality.
Yes, the N Koreans would nuke Japan if we attacked, and the Japanese population is relatively unprepared (as are we).
Edited to add: Here's a good link offering various perspectives of N Korea's military ability: http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/8thFW/...b11d4.html#Food
Yes, the N Koreans would nuke Japan if we attacked, and the Japanese population is relatively unprepared (as are we).
Edited to add: Here's a good link offering various perspectives of N Korea's military ability: http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/8thFW/...b11d4.html#Food
QUOTE(TragicClown @ Dec 13 2003, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE(nikachu @ Dec 8 2003, 11:17 AM)
QUOTE
If the DPRK where nuked it would nuke as many west coast American cities as it has bombs.
The CIA thinks they have 3-6.
The CIA thinks they have 3-6.
However it doesn't have the missile technology to get a nuclear warhead from North Korea to west coast US. It would bomb Japan instead
So, would Tokyo, the largest city in the world, be an acceptable loss to invade the DPRK?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/
"While testifying at a Senate committee hearing in Washington, CIA Director George Tenet was asked whether North Korea had a ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. West Coast.
Before answering, Tenet turned to very quickly consult with aides sitting behind him.
"I think the declassified answer, is yes, they can do that," Tenet said."
Attempt at bypassing profanity filter removed
I think their missiles can reach us but maybe not.
Here's a fox News article: Article
QUOTE
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea, which says it might resume missile tests, could be ready to test a two-stage rocket capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii with a nuclear weapon-sized payload, according to U.S. defense analysts.
and this one where there was part of a warhead from NK in Alaska: 2nd Article
QUOTE
The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed yesterday.
I do not think that Fox News counts as a reliable source of information. Go America, I would like to know why you are so desperate to invade North Korea, why will you not allow for diplomacy? What reasons do you give for the absolute necessity of a military attack?
Iraq was invaded with a moderately safe assumption that Saddam was not going to unleash a torrent of weapons of mass destruction. In North Korea you could not be guranteed the same hospitality. You may claim this to be a reason why we should go in (because he was weapons of mass destruction) but for what reasons do you assume he is going to unlease them on the world?
I am not going to lie, the situation worries me, but all-out agresssion at this stage seems uncessarily destructive.
Iraq was invaded with a moderately safe assumption that Saddam was not going to unleash a torrent of weapons of mass destruction. In North Korea you could not be guranteed the same hospitality. You may claim this to be a reason why we should go in (because he was weapons of mass destruction) but for what reasons do you assume he is going to unlease them on the world?
I am not going to lie, the situation worries me, but all-out agresssion at this stage seems uncessarily destructive.
There are no verifiable reports that N Korea can hit the US.
That they can hit Japan is known because N Korea was able to fire a missile over Japan a few months ago.
The CIA think that N Korea has a missile that could hit the US, but, if they do, it has not yet been tested. Given that North Korea is desperate to receive guarantees that the US will not attack them, it seems unlikely that they would attack without warning.
I have been unable to find any other sources about the warhead in Alaska over than in the Korean Times, in which the report was originally published. Has anyone else managed to find a reference to this warhead other than in 1 newspaper?
That they can hit Japan is known because N Korea was able to fire a missile over Japan a few months ago.
The CIA think that N Korea has a missile that could hit the US, but, if they do, it has not yet been tested. Given that North Korea is desperate to receive guarantees that the US will not attack them, it seems unlikely that they would attack without warning.
I have been unable to find any other sources about the warhead in Alaska over than in the Korean Times, in which the report was originally published. Has anyone else managed to find a reference to this warhead other than in 1 newspaper?
QUOTE(TragicClown @ Dec 7 2003, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 8 2003, 02:18 AM)
If they cross the line again we should let the South deal with them and if we have to go in we should nuke them off the planet and not waste a single American life on them.
If the DPRK where nuked it would nuke as many west coast American cities as it has bombs.
The CIA thinks they have 3-6.
We would not nuke them for no reason as I said. If they attack we should nuke them and when we do they will have no “response” because the weapons and launchers will be the first targets destroyed.
Also we are rushing out anti missile defense – the one Clinton put on hold because we didn’t need it!!! The LM/Raytheon defense system just had another successful test and this could save west coast cities if the crazy commy launches at us.
Edina-based Alliant Techsystems and Raytheon successfully fired upon and intercepted an inbound ballistic test missile Thursday, on behalf of the Missile Defense Agency and the Navy.
The test, part of the Bush administration's effort to get advanced intercepting missile technology deployed by 2005, used a Raytheon "Standard SM-3" missile that was equipped with Alliant's warhead guidance system and third-stage rocket motor.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/4263427.html
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 13 2003, 10:07 AM)
N Korea has the most extensive system of underground bunker-tunnels in the world. Contrary to Iraq and many other places, they are within rock, and most likely impervious to bunker-busting bombs (of course, the capability of our bombs is classified so I wouldn't know). There is a high likelihood the N Koreans expect to survive a nuclear attack, and are quite prepared for that potentiality.
Yes, the N Koreans would nuke Japan if we attacked, and the Japanese population is relatively unprepared (as are we).
Edited to add: Here's a good link offering various perspectives of N Korea's military ability: http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/8thFW/...b11d4.html#Food
Yes, the N Koreans would nuke Japan if we attacked, and the Japanese population is relatively unprepared (as are we).
Edited to add: Here's a good link offering various perspectives of N Korea's military ability: http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/8thFW/...b11d4.html#Food
Right you are Mrs. P and I believe this is the reason the Pentagon wants to develop a nuclear “bunker buster”. The weapon would use the low yield trigger form a thermonuclear device. It could then destroy deep bunkers anywhere.
Some Liberals and the environmental crowd hate the idea but the pentagons position is that if we cannot hold those deep sites “at risk” they will proliferate and prove to be a real threat to world peace.
The Bunker built by the German company in Yugoslavia was never touched by our conventional bunker busters.
Can we remember that nuking N Korea will kill a lot of civilians, who themselves have NO control over the actions of N Korea's leadership and are mostly brutally repressed.
Nuking a country offers little guarantee that those who instigated an attack will be killed, Kim Il Jong will have plenty of hiding places for himself and may well survive a nuke attack unscathed.
So the US ends up nuking a city full of starving repressed people, whilst China sees the US nuking a country that China has traditionally protected....and worldwide support for the US plummets.
The nuclear bomb worked in Japan because the Japanese leadership cared about Japan and the Japanese people - even if they were terrifyingly nationalistic. It won't achieve anything in N Korea, because Kim Il Jong would gladly sacrifice his entire country for his own gain.
If N Korea really starts looking dangerous, I think that the US and China should work together for regime change. China won't want a rogue state on its doorstep - but what happens to N Korea after a regime change would be problematic. China wouldn't want a unified Korea, but may wish to control N Korea itself...
Nuking a country offers little guarantee that those who instigated an attack will be killed, Kim Il Jong will have plenty of hiding places for himself and may well survive a nuke attack unscathed.
So the US ends up nuking a city full of starving repressed people, whilst China sees the US nuking a country that China has traditionally protected....and worldwide support for the US plummets.
The nuclear bomb worked in Japan because the Japanese leadership cared about Japan and the Japanese people - even if they were terrifyingly nationalistic. It won't achieve anything in N Korea, because Kim Il Jong would gladly sacrifice his entire country for his own gain.
If N Korea really starts looking dangerous, I think that the US and China should work together for regime change. China won't want a rogue state on its doorstep - but what happens to N Korea after a regime change would be problematic. China wouldn't want a unified Korea, but may wish to control N Korea itself...
Kim Jong is sick. An assassination strike on him is the only way to prevent massive casualties on both sides before it comes to war.
As for China participating, i think if push does come to shove, they will back the US if this goes to war
As for China participating, i think if push does come to shove, they will back the US if this goes to war
QUOTE
Kim Jong is sick. An assassination strike on him is the only way to prevent massive casualties on both sides before it comes to war.
As for China participating, i think if push does come to shove, they will back the US if this goes to war
As for China participating, i think if push does come to shove, they will back the US if this goes to war
I think so, China has little interest in choosing N Korea over the USA. N Korea isn't going to buy many Chinese exports. The USA will.
I would certainly prefer limited strikes aimed to take out N Korean leadership, rather than massive bombing of cities - I'd almost prefer it to diplomacy, because diplomacy seems to end up maintaining the status quo, wheras taking out N Korean leadership might at least lead to reunification with the South.
Although I'm not condoning unwarranted strikes of course - it is incumbent upon democratic govts to avoid violence wherever possible
Just my two cents.
Kim may be psychotic.
But he isn't stupid. He knows exactly the position he has the world in - and I don't think he intends to use it to start a war he couldn't win.
Even the chief ally of the DPRK, my own homeland, is turning against them - the Kims as a regime have cost the PRC a huge amount of money from an already small budget (relatively speaking, compare to Japan or RSK).
Plus, I think the PRC quite enjoys being the unchallenged superpower in Asia. They don't need more nuclear states turning "unchallenged" into "challenged".
Kim Jong Il, Zhu Rongji - neither one is sane, nor nice.
But neither one is stupid, and both have opposing goals.
China is not going to be with NK in any conflict here...
-ws
Kim may be psychotic.
But he isn't stupid. He knows exactly the position he has the world in - and I don't think he intends to use it to start a war he couldn't win.
Even the chief ally of the DPRK, my own homeland, is turning against them - the Kims as a regime have cost the PRC a huge amount of money from an already small budget (relatively speaking, compare to Japan or RSK).
Plus, I think the PRC quite enjoys being the unchallenged superpower in Asia. They don't need more nuclear states turning "unchallenged" into "challenged".
Kim Jong Il, Zhu Rongji - neither one is sane, nor nice.
But neither one is stupid, and both have opposing goals.
China is not going to be with NK in any conflict here...
-ws
QUOTE(Shinwa @ Dec 15 2003, 02:08 PM)
Just my two cents.
Kim may be psychotic.
But he isn't stupid. He knows exactly the position he has the world in - and I don't think he intends to use it to start a war he couldn't win.
Even the chief ally of the DPRK, my own homeland, is turning against them - the Kims as a regime have cost the PRC a huge amount of money from an already small budget (relatively speaking, compare to Japan or RSK).
Plus, I think the PRC quite enjoys being the unchallenged superpower in Asia. They don't need more nuclear states turning "unchallenged" into "challenged".
Kim Jong Il, Zhu Rongji - neither one is sane, nor nice.
But neither one is stupid, and both have opposing goals.
China is not going to be with NK in any conflict here...
-ws
Kim may be psychotic.
But he isn't stupid. He knows exactly the position he has the world in - and I don't think he intends to use it to start a war he couldn't win.
Even the chief ally of the DPRK, my own homeland, is turning against them - the Kims as a regime have cost the PRC a huge amount of money from an already small budget (relatively speaking, compare to Japan or RSK).
Plus, I think the PRC quite enjoys being the unchallenged superpower in Asia. They don't need more nuclear states turning "unchallenged" into "challenged".
Kim Jong Il, Zhu Rongji - neither one is sane, nor nice.
But neither one is stupid, and both have opposing goals.
China is not going to be with NK in any conflict here...
-ws
Good points and this is why we should resist the temptation to give in to blackmail.
If they want nukes – fine keep them and see if you can feed them to your people because we will not give them food or fuel aid.
QUOTE
Good points and this is why we should resist the temptation to give in to blackmail.
If they want nukes – fine keep them and see if you can feed them to your people because we will not give them food or fuel aid.
If they want nukes – fine keep them and see if you can feed them to your people because we will not give them food or fuel aid.
My main concern is that Kin may prefer to have nukes and starving people rather than no nukes and people receiving aid.
Internationally we make no distinction between a country's people and a country's leadership when imposing sanctions etc. I think a better option would be to provide food and medical aid, but to sanction any country or company that lends money to dictatorial regimes. It is immoral to make Iraqis repay debts run up under Saddam Hussein, equally we should not punish the people of N Korea for the actions of Kim Jong Il.
QUOTE(nikachu @ Dec 16 2003, 05:06 AM)
It is immoral to make Iraqis repay debts run up under Saddam Hussein, equally we should not punish the people of N Korea for the actions of Kim Jong Il.
I agree because in the aftermath of a war, the economy of the nation in the middle of it would suffer greatly. If there is a nuke war, it would be very worse. Some countries don't care about this and want their money back.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Dec 15 2003, 03:41 PM)
Kim Jong is sick. An assassination strike on him is the only way to prevent massive casualties on both sides before it comes to war.
As for China participating, i think if push does come to shove, they will back the US if this goes to war
As for China participating, i think if push does come to shove, they will back the US if this goes to war
Assassinating Kim Jong Il is the best solution? What would that achieve? Thats like killing the US president and expecting the whole state to fall.
China would not participate in my opinion. However the US would withdraw, just like Vietnam. They would have massive fatalities. And yes the citizens of the DPRK would fight till their death, I hate to say it but they have been brought up that way. You would have 8million suicide bombers.
Scary thought.QUOTE
PYONGYANG, December 4 (KCNA) -- The Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland (CPRF) issued a statement today.
DO NOT POST FULLY COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS HERE. LINK TO THEM INSTEAD. LINKQUOTE
North Korean news media on Dec. 4 said the country will strike back the U.S. Mainland if the latter provokes another war on the Korean Peninsula.
DO NOT POST FULLY COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS HERE. LINK TO THEM INSTEAD. LINKhttp://210.145.168.243/pk/
Review the Rules regarding posting copyrighted material
FARC
You are quoting from a North Korean news agency. Think about that for a second
Saddam said the same damn thing when we were threatening a war with Iraq.
I doubt that any schoolchild will become a suicide bomber for Kim Jong. I doubt their parents would do any real fighting FOR Kim Jong.
You better lay off the NK propaganda for awhile Sir
You are quoting from a North Korean news agency. Think about that for a second
Saddam said the same damn thing when we were threatening a war with Iraq.
I doubt that any schoolchild will become a suicide bomber for Kim Jong. I doubt their parents would do any real fighting FOR Kim Jong.
You better lay off the NK propaganda for awhile Sir
I think GoAmerica is right.
These people are starving and live in fear of secret police, labour camps and disappearing in the middle of the night.
Starving people do not make effective fighters and they probably fear their own government as much as an 'invading' American army.
The NK army is better fed than most of the population, but not by much and it wouldn't take more than a few engagements with US troops or their allies before they realise that they are massively outclassed technologically and logistically.
I doubt there would even be the guerilla problem seen in Iraq, which is based on the misconception that America is either after oil, out to destroy Islam or both. Once N Korea was liberated the people there would be able to see how well South Korea has prospered as a result of US help and would be told by other Koreans that the US was a friend.
I am unsure what China would do. They wouldn't want American troops on NK soil, but they seem to be less inclined to support the NK regime, because it is a troublemaker. I think one of the biggest problem with regime change would be how to prevent China from invading N Korea at the first suitable opportunity.
These people are starving and live in fear of secret police, labour camps and disappearing in the middle of the night.
Starving people do not make effective fighters and they probably fear their own government as much as an 'invading' American army.
The NK army is better fed than most of the population, but not by much and it wouldn't take more than a few engagements with US troops or their allies before they realise that they are massively outclassed technologically and logistically.
I doubt there would even be the guerilla problem seen in Iraq, which is based on the misconception that America is either after oil, out to destroy Islam or both. Once N Korea was liberated the people there would be able to see how well South Korea has prospered as a result of US help and would be told by other Koreans that the US was a friend.
I am unsure what China would do. They wouldn't want American troops on NK soil, but they seem to be less inclined to support the NK regime, because it is a troublemaker. I think one of the biggest problem with regime change would be how to prevent China from invading N Korea at the first suitable opportunity.
It would be helpful I think if people try to understand the people of NK and how they have lived their lives for generations. I watched a documentary on either History Channel or PBS not too long ago that explained quite a few things that are relevant to this discussion. The NK people by and large support their leader Kim as an almost God-like figure, quite similar to the way the Japanese people viewed their emperor prior to WWII. An attack against him would be viewed by the people of NK as an attack against them and they would resist by whatever means they could.
It is a difficult thing for people in the west to understand, there is no question that NK is one of the most oppressive and brutal societies on earth, people live in abject poverty and misery. So how could they possibly support a dictator who has caused their lives to be that way? Simply put, they don't know any better. For their entire lives and the lives of their parents they have been indoctrinated with the idea that all that stands between them and complete destruction is their leader. He protects them, he cares for them, he loves them, yada yada yada... Not only is NK brutally backward in a social sense, it is also one of the most closed societies in the world. NOTHING gets in that the government doesn't want in and the people of NK don't even know how bad off they are in relation to the rest of the world.
Like I said, hard for us to comprehend, but it's true and if you think for a one moment that killing Kim will be greeted with joy and happiness in NK, you are mistaken. They would react to that as if they themselves had been attacked.
It seems to me that the key to this entire thing is China. China has a bigger stake in this situation that even the US does. The last thing they want to see happen is for a full scale war to break out in the region. Add to that the fact that China is about the only country that Kim will even listen to, and then only on his good days, and that makes China the key player and broker for all of this. We absolutely need their help and involvement or goodness knows what might happen.
It is a difficult thing for people in the west to understand, there is no question that NK is one of the most oppressive and brutal societies on earth, people live in abject poverty and misery. So how could they possibly support a dictator who has caused their lives to be that way? Simply put, they don't know any better. For their entire lives and the lives of their parents they have been indoctrinated with the idea that all that stands between them and complete destruction is their leader. He protects them, he cares for them, he loves them, yada yada yada... Not only is NK brutally backward in a social sense, it is also one of the most closed societies in the world. NOTHING gets in that the government doesn't want in and the people of NK don't even know how bad off they are in relation to the rest of the world.
Like I said, hard for us to comprehend, but it's true and if you think for a one moment that killing Kim will be greeted with joy and happiness in NK, you are mistaken. They would react to that as if they themselves had been attacked.
It seems to me that the key to this entire thing is China. China has a bigger stake in this situation that even the US does. The last thing they want to see happen is for a full scale war to break out in the region. Add to that the fact that China is about the only country that Kim will even listen to, and then only on his good days, and that makes China the key player and broker for all of this. We absolutely need their help and involvement or goodness knows what might happen.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Dec 20 2003, 09:18 PM)
FARC
You are quoting from a North Korean news agency. Think about that for a second
Saddam said the same damn thing when we were threatening a war with Iraq.
I doubt that any schoolchild will become a suicide bomber for Kim Jong. I doubt their parents would do any real fighting FOR Kim Jong.
You better lay off the NK propaganda for awhile Sir
You are quoting from a North Korean news agency. Think about that for a second
Saddam said the same damn thing when we were threatening a war with Iraq.
I doubt that any schoolchild will become a suicide bomber for Kim Jong. I doubt their parents would do any real fighting FOR Kim Jong.
You better lay off the NK propaganda for awhile Sir
I see nothing wrong with quoting from a North Korean news agency. Far more truth in them, unlike western news agencies especially American ones.
Much of the attacks on US forces are not coming from foreign fighters, I believe much is coming from ordinary Iraqi citizens opposed to the US military. Just look at the many pro-saddam rallies held in Iraq, I suppose all those are 'foreign fighters' like your US media would have you believe.
The people of North Korea would fight, they have been taught this their whole lives. The propaganda is a way of defending themselves against future imperialist agression as is their Nuclear Weapons program. Kim is not a stupid man, this is a good tactic and I highly doubt he ever intends to use them offensively. Only as a bargaining tool or if the US invades.
QUOTE
These people are starving and live in fear of secret police, labour camps and disappearing in the middle of the night.
This is just false, propaganda from the West to undermine socialism. Do not be so naive.
Not many people are starving. If they are it is because of US Economic pressure which is enormous.
QUOTE
The NK army is better fed than most of the population, but not by much and it wouldn't take more than a few engagements with US troops or their allies before they realise that they are massively outclassed technologically and logistically.
It would be a lot more than a few. Do not underestimate the DPRK's military strength. That would be very foolish. I shall find some numbers for you if I have the time.
QUOTE
I doubt there would even be the guerilla problem seen in Iraq, which is based on the misconception that America is either after oil, out to destroy Islam or both. Once N Korea was liberated the people there would be able to see how well South Korea has prospered as a result of US help and would be told by other Koreans that the US was a friend.
Misconception? OK
It would not even become a guerrilla problem, the US would withdraw from sustaining too much casulties. You would lose many of the battles but you would win the war. You'd probably just nuke them.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Dec 21 2003, 11:00 AM)
It would be helpful I think if people try to understand the people of NK and how they have lived their lives for generations. I watched a documentary on either History Channel or PBS not too long ago that explained quite a few things that are relevant to this discussion.
I believe it was PBS and I saw it too, they just repeated it a few nights ago too.
Here is a link to the Frontline web page.
I remember one of the important pieces of propaganda that the NK citizens hear is that the US started the Korean War. We invaded North Korea!
That they will fight to the death to protect their country and any imperialistic intentions. One of the links on the site is an interview with the BBC reporter Ben Anderson. Here are some quotes:
QUOTE
Your official minders, Mr. Pak and Miss Pak, seemed very intent on getting the party line across.
You can't underestimate how much they think their version of events is a. the truth and b. proves how much better their system is than any other country's system. So they really do think that if they explain things to you, if you're open to it and you really listen to them properly, you'll think "Oh, I see what you're saying. So the Great Leader single-handedly defeated the Japanese in 1945 and freed North Korea from Japanese occupation!" They actually think you're going to be convinced of that and that you're suddenly going to forget everything you've read about that little incident called World War II.
You can't underestimate how much they think their version of events is a. the truth and b. proves how much better their system is than any other country's system. So they really do think that if they explain things to you, if you're open to it and you really listen to them properly, you'll think "Oh, I see what you're saying. So the Great Leader single-handedly defeated the Japanese in 1945 and freed North Korea from Japanese occupation!" They actually think you're going to be convinced of that and that you're suddenly going to forget everything you've read about that little incident called World War II.
QUOTE
Are you saying that there's something fundamentally different about obedience to Kim Jong-il in North Korea, that fidelity to the leader as almost a deity runs deeper in North Korean culture?
Possibly, because in Iraq you feel absolutely certain that Saddam has almost zero support in his own country. In North Korea, though, you think: Well, maybe most of the population really does feel this kind of pride. Certainly you come away from a trip to the demilitarized zone on the northern side feeling absolutely positive that if a conflict between South Korea and the U.S. troops in South Korea breaks out, these guys will gladly stand and fight to the death.
Possibly, because in Iraq you feel absolutely certain that Saddam has almost zero support in his own country. In North Korea, though, you think: Well, maybe most of the population really does feel this kind of pride. Certainly you come away from a trip to the demilitarized zone on the northern side feeling absolutely positive that if a conflict between South Korea and the U.S. troops in South Korea breaks out, these guys will gladly stand and fight to the death.
The quote below is in reference to some North Koreans running away when they thought the reporter was American.
QUOTE
It wasn't that they were afraid of getting in trouble for talking to you?
No, no, they were afraid that we were American. We asked, "What do they think we're going to do? Do they think we're going to beat them up or abduct them or something because we're American? She said, "No, it's just that in all our movies, the bad guys are always American."
No, no, they were afraid that we were American. We asked, "What do they think we're going to do? Do they think we're going to beat them up or abduct them or something because we're American? She said, "No, it's just that in all our movies, the bad guys are always American."
I would not underestimate the fear North Koreans have of us. I believe the North Koreans would fight with everything they have. Any decisions on how to proceed certainly need to take that into consideration.
QUOTE
This is just false, propaganda from the West to undermine socialism. Do not be so naive.
Not many people are starving. If they are it is because of US Economic pressure which is enormous.
Not many people are starving. If they are it is because of US Economic pressure which is enormous.
Could you provide at least a modicum of proof to back up your claims? You state that westerners are naive and our media is nothing but propaganda, yet you back it up with nothing but one liners. That seems like typical communist propaganda to us.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...k/dprk-dark.htm
This is a satellite photo of the Korean penisular at night.
It's a little difficult to follow at first - but the lit up parts in the bottom left hand side of the photo is South Korea, the sparsely lit up bit at the top centre is N Korea and the blob to the right is Japan.
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/as.htm
should help you follow the nighttime map.
Anyway - it doesn't show whether or not N Koreans are starving, but I think it gives a fairly good indication of the power problems in N Korea compared to S Korea or Japan.
Anyone who thinks that electricity isn't impotant - or that lack of it doesn't affect living standards - well, I'm sure you'll be quite happy to turn off your computer, fridge, cooker, lights, air conditioning and everything else that runs off electricity and try living like a North Korean for a while.
And yes, these photos could be propoganda - anything could be propoganda - but we don't need to resort to propoganda to undermine socialism - we can just go and visit Russia.
This is a satellite photo of the Korean penisular at night.
It's a little difficult to follow at first - but the lit up parts in the bottom left hand side of the photo is South Korea, the sparsely lit up bit at the top centre is N Korea and the blob to the right is Japan.
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/as.htm
should help you follow the nighttime map.
Anyway - it doesn't show whether or not N Koreans are starving, but I think it gives a fairly good indication of the power problems in N Korea compared to S Korea or Japan.
Anyone who thinks that electricity isn't impotant - or that lack of it doesn't affect living standards - well, I'm sure you'll be quite happy to turn off your computer, fridge, cooker, lights, air conditioning and everything else that runs off electricity and try living like a North Korean for a while.
And yes, these photos could be propoganda - anything could be propoganda - but we don't need to resort to propoganda to undermine socialism - we can just go and visit Russia.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Dec 21 2003, 05:23 PM)
QUOTE
This is just false, propaganda from the West to undermine socialism. Do not be so naive.
Not many people are starving. If they are it is because of US Economic pressure which is enormous.
Not many people are starving. If they are it is because of US Economic pressure which is enormous.
Could you provide at least a modicum of proof to back up your claims? You state that westerners are naive and our media is nothing but propaganda, yet you back it up with nothing but one liners. That seems like typical communist propaganda to us.
Proof that western media is mostly propaganda when it comes to politics? I don't feel the need to provide you with 'proof' nor do I have the time. I don't know, read these...I haven't yet.
http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper615.html
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Me...aganda/Iraq.asp
Also just look at the sham of 'democratic' Russian parliamentary elections. Independent analysts even said they were unfair. Much of Russia's media is state controlled and was completly one sided towords the 'United Russia' party. Just another capitalist state using media to undermine the communists.
QUOTE
but we don't need to resort to propoganda to undermine socialism - we can just go and visit Russia.
I do not understand what you mean.
Actually, I should have said the Russia demonstrates why Communism (i.e. totalitarian socialism) doesn't work. I'm quite happy for any economic system to be put in place, so long as it is installed democratically.
I never said that capitalist Russia is perfect, but I think that decades of communist (i.e. dictatorial) rule has led to the unpleasant situation today. Because democracy has been stifled for so long in Russia, is anyone suprised that it hasn't suddenly sprung back into action. Anyway, if Communist Russia was so successful , then how come it was brought down by its own people? Maybe they got tired of disappearing in the middle of the night for complaining too much?
I didn't really see the relevance of those two sources, one of them finishes by praising westen journalist such as Larry King etc, who maintain standards of professionalism in western media and the other recounts the history of Saddam Hussein, most of which has been in reported by (supposedly propagandist) Western media.
Anyway, all of which is irrelevant, because N Korea is communist / socialist in name alone and is really just a despotic state run by a tyrant who lives in luxury.
QUOTE
Also just look at the sham of 'democratic' Russian parliamentary elections. Independent analysts even said they were unfair. Much of Russia's media is state controlled and was completly one sided towords the 'United Russia' party. Just another capitalist state using media to undermine the communists.
I never said that capitalist Russia is perfect, but I think that decades of communist (i.e. dictatorial) rule has led to the unpleasant situation today. Because democracy has been stifled for so long in Russia, is anyone suprised that it hasn't suddenly sprung back into action. Anyway, if Communist Russia was so successful , then how come it was brought down by its own people? Maybe they got tired of disappearing in the middle of the night for complaining too much?
I didn't really see the relevance of those two sources, one of them finishes by praising westen journalist such as Larry King etc, who maintain standards of professionalism in western media and the other recounts the history of Saddam Hussein, most of which has been in reported by (supposedly propagandist) Western media.
Anyway, all of which is irrelevant, because N Korea is communist / socialist in name alone and is really just a despotic state run by a tyrant who lives in luxury.
The nuclear threat we still face is because of the collapse of the USSR. After the collapse, nuclear arms inventories were slacked and because they weren't paid enough, those who guard them will or have sold some materials to make some extra cash. Black Market materials are hard to find and they could fall into anyone's hands. Anyone who wants a nuclear weapon for status or to use against an enemy (I.E: Al-queda against the US)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.