Originally Posted by Donkey® There's not going to be any war or attacks. NK all along has said it wanted nukes as self defense. Hasn't threatened anyone. From what I can tell, more threats have come from us and others towards them. So they have nukes, and it's confirmed, now ...
10-09-2006, 12:35 PM
| #41 | ||||
| One American Family at a Time.  Idealist The OC, California 
| Originally Posted by Donkey® Well, we came out and said that we would defend our Allies no matter what. I don't know what that means, but I hope that doesn't mean we starting handing out nuke's... 
| ||||
     |
|
10-09-2006, 01:13 PM
| #42 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up  Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland If we do we are just doing it to piss NK off. It's not like we don't have Nuclear capable aircraft on carriers in that area or Subs with short/med range nukes also.
| ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 01:57 PM
| #43 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| from stratfor.com.. not my fav but whatever Alert: North Korea -- Is There a Military Solution? Summary Whatever the political realities may seem to dictate after a North Korean nuclear test, an overt military strike -- even one limited to cruise missiles -- is not in the cards. The consequences of even the most restrained attack could be devastating. Analysis The reported detonation of a nuclear device by North Korea on Oct. 9 raises the question of potential military action against North Korea. The rationale for such a strike would be simple. North Korea, given its rhetoric, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Therefore, an attack to deny them the facilities with which to convert their device into a weapon and deploy it is essential. If such an attack were to take place, it is assumed, the United States would play the dominant or even sole role. This scenario assumes that North Korea is as aggressive as its rhetoric. But what about North Korea's well-armed neighbors -- Russia, China, South Korea, Japan? Would they not be willing to assume the major burden of an attack against North Korea? Is the United States really willing to go it alone, even while engaged in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan? Leaving these obvious political questions aside for the moment, let's reverse the issue by posing it in military terms: What would a U.S. strike against North Korea look like? The USS Kitty Hawk is currently sitting in port at Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan. The USS Enterprise is operating in the Arabian Sea, while the Nimitz and the Stennis are conducting exercises off the coast of California. All are an ocean away, and none is less than a week's transit from the region. Nevertheless, naval cruise missiles are readily available, as are long-range strikes by B-2A Spirit stealth bombers and B-52H Stratofortresses and B-1B Lancers currently supporting NATO operations in Afghanistan out of Diego Garcia. A more robust strike package would take longer to deploy. When U.S. military planners have nightmares, they have nightmares about war with North Korea. Even the idea of limited strikes against the isolated nation is fraught with potential escalations. The problem is the mission. A limited attack against nuclear facilities might destabilize North Korea or lead North Korea to the conclusion that the United States would intend regime change. Regime preservation is the entire point of its nuclear capability. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that Kim Jong-Il and his advisors -- or other factions --might construe even the most limited military strikes against targets directly related to missile development or a nuclear program as an act threatening the regime, and therefore one that necessitates a fierce response. Regime survival could very easily entail a full, unlimited reprisal by the Korean People's Army (KPA) to any military strike whatsoever on North Korean soil. North Korea has some 10,000 fortified artillery pieces trained on Seoul. It is essential to understand that South Korea's capital city, a major population center and the industrial heartland of South Korea, is within range of conventional artillery. The United States has been moving its forces out of range of these guns, but the South Koreans cannot move their capital. Add to this the fact that North Korea has more than 100 No-Dong missiles that can reach deep into South Korea, as well as to Japan, and we can see that the possibility for retaliation is very real. Although the No-Dong has not always been the most reliable weapon, just the possibility of dozens of strikes against U.S. forces in Korea and other cities in Korea and Japan presents a daunting scenario. North Korea has cultivated a reputation for unpredictability. Although it has been fairly conservative in its actions compared to its rhetoric, the fact is that no one can predict North Korea's response to strikes against its nuclear facilities. And with Seoul at risk -- a city of 20 million people -- the ability to take risks is limited. The United States must assume, for the sake of planning, that U.S. airstrikes would be followed by massed artillery fire on Seoul. Now, massed artillery is itself not immune to countermeasures. But North Korea's artillery lies deep inside caves and fortifications all along the western section of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). An air campaign against these guns would take a long time, during which enormous damage would be done to Seoul and the South Korean economy -- perhaps on the order of several hundred thousand high-explosive rounds per hour. Even using tactical nuclear weapons against this artillery would pose serious threats to Seoul. The radiation from even low-yield weapons could force the evacuation of the city. The option of moving north into the North Korean defensive belt is an option, but an enormously costly one. North Korea has a huge army and, on the defensive, it can be formidable. Fifty years of concerted military fortification would make Hezbollah's preparations in southern Lebanon look like child's play. Moving U.S. and South Korean armor into this defensive belt could break it, but only with substantial casualties and without the certainty of success. A massive stalemate along the DMZ, if it developed, would work in favor of the larger, defensive force. Moreover, the North Koreans would have the option of moving south. Now, in U.S. thinking, this is the ideal scenario. The North Korean force on the move, outside of its fortifications, would be vulnerable to U.S. and South Korean airstrikes and superior ground maneuver and fire capabilities. In most war games, the defeat of North Korea requires the KPA to move south, exposing itself to counterstrikes. However, the same war-gaming has also supposed at least 30 days for the activation and mobilization of U.S. forces for a counterattack. U.S. and South Korean forces would maintain an elastic defense against the North; as in the first war, forces would be rushed into the region, stabilizing the front, and then a counterattack would develop, breaking the North Korean army and allowing a move north. There are three problems with this strategy. The first is that the elastic strategy would inevitably lead to the fall of Seoul and, if the 1950 model were a guide, a much deeper withdrawal along the Korean Peninsula. Second, the ability of the U.S. Army to deploy substantial forces to Korea within a 30-day window is highly dubious. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom both required much longer periods of time. Finally, the U.S. Army is already fighting two major ground wars and is stretched to the breaking point. The rotation schedule is now so tight that units are already spending more time in Iraq than they are home between rotations. The idea that the U.S. Army has a multidivisional force available for deployment in South Korea would require a national mobilization not seen since the last Korean War. It comes down to this: If the United States strikes at North Korea's nuclear capabilities, it does so placing a bet. And that bet is that North Korea will not respond. That might be true, but if it is not true, it poses a battlefield problem to which neither South Korea nor the United States will be able to respond. In one scenario, the North Koreans bombard Seoul and the United States makes a doomed attempt at shutting down the massive artillery barrage. By the time the guns are silenced -- even in the best-case scenarios -- Seoul will be a mess. In another scenario, the North Korean army executes an offensive of even minimal competence, which costs South Korea its capital and industrial heartland. The third is a guerrilla onslaught from the elite of the North Korean Army, deployed by mini-subs and tunnels under the DMZ. The guerrillas pour into the south and wreak havoc on U.S. military installations. That is how a U.S. strike -- and its outcome -- might look. Now, what about the Chinese and Russians? They are, of course, not likely to support such a U.S. attack (and could even supply North Korea in an extended war). Add in the fact that South Korea would not be willing to risk destroying Seoul and you arrive at a situation where even a U.S. nuclear strike against nuclear and non-nuclear targets would pose an unacceptable threat to South Korea. There are two advantages the United States has. The first is time. There is a huge difference between a nuclear device and a deployable nuclear weapon. The latter has to be shaped into a small, rugged package able to be launched on a missile or dropped from a plane. Causing atomic fission is not the same as having a weapon. The second advantage is distance. The United States is safe and far away from North Korea. Four other powers -- Russia, China, South Korea and Japan -- have much more to fear from North Korea than the United States does. The United States will always act unilaterally if it feels that it has no other way to protect its national interest. As it is, however, U.S. national interest is not at stake. South Korea faces nothing less than national destruction in an all-out war. South Korea knows this and it will vigorously oppose any overt military action. Nor does China profit from a destabilized North Korea and a heavy-handed U.S. military move in its backyard. Nevertheless, if North Korea is a threat, it is first a threat to its immediate neighbors, one or more of whom can deal with North Korea. In the end, North Korea wants regime survival. In the end, allowing the North Koran regime to survive is something that has been acceptable for over half a century. When you play out the options, the acquisition of a nuclear device -- especially one neither robust nor deployable -- does not, by itself, compel the United States to act, nor does it give the United States a militarily satisfactory option. The most important issue is the transfer of North Korean nuclear technology to other countries and groups. That is something the six-party talk participants have an equal interest in and might have the leverage to prevent. Every situation does not have a satisfactory military solution. This seems to be one of them. hth Boris London | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 02:52 PM
| #44 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist North Carolina
| I'll say it once again, this is another direct failure of the Bush Administration's bungled foreign policy. North Korea wants to be a player on the world scale, they want to be able to feed their people and have assurances that they wont be attacked, similar to other harsh brutal communist regimes in the reigion. Because we've essentially refused to deal with them, they've had to use hysterics in order to get attention. They've seen the success Iran has had bucking the international community, and the nice "incentive package" that they've been offered -- including a light water nuclear reactor -- if they'll only do this, or that. North Korea is obviously attempting to model itself after Iran in this regard, and unfortunately both of our policies have ultimately been failures. With Iran because we've refused to take the lead, rather allowing European nations to run the show, and with North Korea because we've refused to engage in any meaningful dialogue. We shouldn't be outsourcing our foreign policy to Europe, we shouldn't leave our national interests in the hands of countries like Russia or China when it comes to this country or that, we should take the lead and step up and be a diplomatic world power like we have been in the past. I've said it in many other threads, but you can't force a nation to give up its nuclear bombs. It's never been done, and it's not smart to try. You can, however, talk them into doing so through open and meaningful dialogue and diplomacy.. something that's been successful at least a dozen times in countries like Brazil, etc.. | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 03:11 PM
| #45 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by motivez irrespective of who is to blame
what do you propose we should do? Boris London | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 03:12 PM
| #46 | ||||
| Administrator  libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by motivez I dont know how you can continue to blame the bush administration for everything that goes wrong especially with regard to N Korea. You know its simply not true. There were a whole host of issues that put N Korea in a position to attain nuclear weapons INCLUDING actions by the "beloved" Clinton administration.
| ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 03:17 PM
| #47 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| I don't blame them for everything, I blame them for what they are responsible for, you know, being the Administration in power during all of the current shit that's going on.. unlike a certain other President that is truly always blamed for everything, even though he stopped being President nearly a decade agao  I'm not even talking about the fact that they have nuclear weapons, though that's certainly partially Bush's fault for not continuing to have an open dialogue, taking a much harsher stance against them, etc, etc.. the whole paradigm shift essentially. I love how Bush is never responsible for anything though. I mean, the fact that he's President and his foreign policy is failing on multiple levels with multiple nations and has caused multiple international problems apparently means it's someone elses fault. | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 03:20 PM
| #48 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by motivez So completely IGNORE all the shit that lead us to where we are? Completely ignore the mishandling of N. Korea from two prior administrations and blame the fact that they have nukes on Bush43? Because we all know how quickly nukes can be developed.
 | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 03:21 PM
| #49 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Our hand are tied with NK, and always have been. I'm not sure what we could have done differently, and how this is 'Bush's fault'  | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 03:25 PM
| #50 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Remember this? Originally Posted by blog w3rd
The policy of engagement put in place by the Clinton administration should more appropriately be called a policy of appeasement. However this problem dates back to the mid/late 80s when NKorea signed the NPT. Inappropriate oversight by the US and world community led us to where we are today. Sanctions began on N Korea in the early 1990s. By early 1993 the IAEA is wanting special inspections of N Korea, the reason behind these inspections? N Korea is suspected of cheating on its NPT obligations and using spent nuclear fuel on a secret weapons program. In mid 1993 the IAEA says it cannot guarantee that N Korea is not using its nuclear materials inappropriately. In June N Korea comes to the US and agrees not to withdraw from the NPT as long as the US promises to NOT use force or the threat of force up to and including nuclear weapons. This is the beginning of the appeasement strategy under Bill Clinton. Originally Posted by timeline Another round of talks and the beginning of talks with the Clinton administration and IAEA in which the USA will help build NUCLEAR REACTORS for N Korea. As you can see as long as 13 years ago they were believed to have enough nuclear material for two bombs.
In 1994 N Korea is not abiding by the framework setup by the IAEA and the Clinton administration. They are removing nuclear waste with no oversight which was required. June of 1994 former president Carter negotiations with the N Koreans. They agree to not refuel their nuclear reactor or do anymore nuclear waste processing. At this point its clear they cannot be trusted. For 8 years they've been decieving the world community. By August of 1994an agreement has been reached that includes the US helping construct light water reactors for N Korea. In the meantime N Korea will stop producting of their own reactors. April of 1996 the USA meets in Berlin to discuss missile development with N Korea. The US Imposes sanctions on N Korea and Iran for weapons exchange programs. In mid 1997 the second round of talks begin between the USA and N Korea. Nothing is agreed upon but future talks remain a possibility and even likely. In 1998 more sanctions are placed on N Korea, this time for potential transfers between N Korea and Pakistan. In June of 1998 N Korea says yet again that they will only disband missile development and sales if the US will compensate them for the lost revenue. Originally Posted by timeline This was predicted all to well in 1998...see above
In late 1998 N Korea and the US meet for their third round of Missile talks. The result is similar, just more talking. Nothing is agree'd upon. The US said it would lift sanctions against N Korea if N Korea would abandon missile and nuclear development. N Korea said sanctions should have been lifted in 1994. Originally Posted by timeline Suspected illegal nuclear activity and the Clinton administration refuses to take action. Instead they continue the path of negotiations taht has worked so well
This country did not develope Nuclear weapons and/or missiles overnight or in a couple years time as many here in DIAC would like you to believe. Early 1999 the CIA director testifies that N Korea could deliver small payloads to Alaska and parts of the West Coast with some modficiations to the existing missile technology. About two months later the FOURTH round of talks begin with N Korea. Once again N Korea refuses to negotiate but they agree to "Talk" again in teh future. Mid 1999 an IAEA inspection team visits a suspected site of illegal nuclear activity. However its been so long that they could have easily cleaned this site up. Around this same time the US attempts MORE negotiations with N Korea. Nothing comes of these talks but they agree to meet again later in the year. Which they do and in the fall of 1999 N Korea agrees to halt missile developement in exchange for lifted sanctions. Originally Posted by timeline December 15th 1999 things finally go forward on the light water reactor construction. In early 2000 the US imposes new sanctions on a N Korean company for dealing in arms trade with Iran. By mid 2000 the US lifts many sanctions on N Korea due to the renewed N Korea/S Korea talks. The US took this as a sign that N Korea was seeing the light. However when July rolled around and it was time to talk with the US again, N Korea again demanded compensation if it were going to no longer work on missile development. A few days later, N Korea wants the US to launch its satellites into space in exchange for abondonment of its missile program. The US says they're taking this offer "seriously". Great so now the terrorist state, and they WERE a terrorist state under Clinton, knows they have leverage with the US...great move...
Albright begins discussions to remove N Korea for the US's terrorist list. Resolving the missile issue is a huge step in the right direction according to US and N Korean officials (even though the issue wasn't addressed). During Albrights visit to N Korea, Kim Jong Il unofficially says he will not test the Taepo Dong 1 Missile any further. However, a short time later at the seventh meeting and in Kuala Lumpur N Korea says it will continue its missile program. What is this, the year 2000 and they're still defiant? Arms Control Association: Fact Sheets: Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy The Belgravia Dispatch: Let's Re-Adopt the Failed Clinton North Korea Policy! Appeasing North Korea: the Clinton Legacy In summary its clear that the Clinton Administrations policy with reguards to N Korea was a failure in every sense of the word. Appeasement was the name of the game, just not let this materialize on my watch. Guess what, it worked, and many especially in the mainstream media turn a blind eye to this. N Korea and Iran were on our list of terrorist nations this was no surprise nor shocking. Bush labeling them "axis of evil" has little or nothing to do with the current actions of N Korea. They're continue a trend they started almost two decades ago. The trend of deceit, lies and power grabbing. Every administration from Reagan to GW Bush bears some of the blame for whats happening today. Trying to stick this thing on "bush's" failed policy is misguided at best and downright decietful by many in the media. Appeasement doesn't work, its been proven over and over again. Ultimately its going to take some hard action to get N Korea to wake up to the world. Hard action that may not be far away. | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 03:25 PM
| #51 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| in between all the red on blue crap people may find this useful and informative pdf from CSIS hth Boris London | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 03:28 PM
| #52 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 I don't ignore it, I just put it into perspective with the realities of what North Korea wants to be less of a threat to international peace. Every Administration is going to make mistakes, so while there are things Clinton could have done better, he's no longer President, and as such.. I'm going to place the majority of the blame on the current failed policy that's lead us directly to this escalation with North Korea.. and that lies with ol Bushy McFuckshitup.
Like I said, it's blatently obvious that the reason they're acting this way is because a) There's no dialogue b) They see the success of Iran being able to buck the international community, and in return get massive incentive packages. That's a direct result of the policy shift the Bush Administration carried out shortly after it came to power with regards to North Korea, and further enhanced it by labeling them an Axis of Evil rather than engage in dialogue with them. You seem to think they had to develop the technology from scratch, perhaps you should read about the Pakistani scientist that's been going door to door like a vacuum salesman with nuclear technology, and why with his technical know-how, it's relatively simple for them to make the leap to where they are now. | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 04:39 PM
| #53 | ||||
| Friend to all.  Socialist Maryland
| It's CLINTON'S FAULT!!!!  Pitiful Ok, let's say Clinton did absolutely nothing about North Korea and failed in every since of the word in diplomacy towards them...so do you think it's ok that Bush followed suite? Do you think it's ok that Bush failed just as bad? | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 04:50 PM
| #54 | ||||
| Junkie libertarian
| I don't really see how NK can sell their shit to anyone. The bomb had to be the size of Little Boy. | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 05:07 PM
| #55 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by Donkey®
Quote for posterity. | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 06:15 PM
| #56 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Sometimes, no matter how well parents bring up their kids, they just hang with the wrong crowd and rebel. There is nothing you can do about it. North Korea is that rebelling brat we all hate. | ||||
| |
