N. Korea to threaten U.S. with more nuclear tests

[Circe]

I'm not comfortable with any country in the world having nuclear weapons. That being said, I don't see how any government currently has the moral standing to stop any other government from doing so.

No, I don't suppose anyone sophisticated thinks that. It's not really about morals so much as political pressure, I think. The idea is to limit nukes as much as possible for as long as possible, because they wider they spread, the more likely they'll be used.

I'm absolutely concerned about the fate of those troops. I urge that they be brought home immediately where they belong. That being said, South Korea itself is far superior to North Korea, technologically speaking, and, while North Korea may have superior numbers, with the U.S. backing them there's nothing North Korea can do, and North Korea knows this.

So you think the tripwire troops should come home......they are written into the Armistice treaty, of course.

You are thinking, I gather, that SK can defend itself effectively against the Million-Man Army and that our support would not be either with ground troops or by an all-out war declared by the USA. What sort of support from the U.S. were you envisioning in the event of that huge NK army crossing the DMZ and heading south? IIRC, it's only 30 miles to Seoul. They could get there very quickly.

Another thing North Korea knows is that if they do something really stupid China will not support them, which means they would stand less than no chance. So they can be as bellicose as they want, but they're not going to make any serious moves without China's blessing, and China has no interest in a real conflict with the United States right now. They're more worried about Japan and the Senkaku Islands than they are North Korea as far as I can tell.

We can't control Cuba; I don't think China can control North Korea. China hasn't been able to control Taiwan all these years either. I'm not sure rogue dictators have masters. That's not what happened last time --- last time NK just charged across the border, as we are afraid they will do now. Eventually, when our forces went north, the million Chinese poured south over their border, and forced the Armistice, but if I understand correctly, the Korean War was not China's idea, it was the first Kim's idea. A new one could be an independent action of the third Kim, I think.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not comfortable with any country in the world having nuclear weapons. That being said, I don't see how any government currently has the moral standing to stop any other government from doing so.

No, I don't suppose anyone sophisticated thinks that. It's not really about morals so much as political pressure, I think. The idea is to limit nukes as much as possible for as long as possible, because they wider they spread, the more likely they'll be used.

I'm absolutely concerned about the fate of those troops. I urge that they be brought home immediately where they belong. That being said, South Korea itself is far superior to North Korea, technologically speaking, and, while North Korea may have superior numbers, with the U.S. backing them there's nothing North Korea can do, and North Korea knows this.

So you think the tripwire troops should come home......they are written into the Armistice treaty, of course.

You are thinking, I gather, that SK can defend itself effectively against the Million-Man Army and that our support would not be either with ground troops or by an all-out war declared by the USA. What sort of support from the U.S. were you envisioning in the event of that huge NK army crossing the DMZ and heading south? IIRC, it's only 30 miles to Seoul. They could get there very quickly.

Another thing North Korea knows is that if they do something really stupid China will not support them, which means they would stand less than no chance. So they can be as bellicose as they want, but they're not going to make any serious moves without China's blessing, and China has no interest in a real conflict with the United States right now. They're more worried about Japan and the Senkaku Islands than they are North Korea as far as I can tell.

We can't control Cuba; I don't think China can control North Korea. China hasn't been able to control Taiwan all these years either. I'm not sure rogue dictators have masters. That's not what happened last time --- last time NK just charged across the border, as we are afraid they will do now. Eventually, when our forces went north, the million Chinese poured south over their border, and forced the Armistice, but if I understand correctly, the Korean War was not China's idea, it was the first Kim's idea. A new one could be an independent action of the third Kim, I think.

Yes, South Korea is technologically superior to North Korea by far, and should be more than capable of defending themselves. Pure numbers aren't the advantage in 2013 that they once were. Regardless, even removing the U.S. troops from South Korea by no means signifies that the U.S. would simply stand by and watch as North Korea tried to invade.

The relationship between the U.S. and Cuba is not a proper analogy for China and North Korea. Nor is China and Taiwan. China and North Korea are actually allies, and China is the only reason that North Korea exists. Now it may be true that North Korea acted without China's knowledge back in the 1950's, but the situation is far different today. China has a different role in the world today, and so much more to lose in 2013 than they did then. They're not going to risk it for North Korea's sake, and North Korea isn't going to put their necks out there without being completely sure China is behind them.

 

[Unkotare]

None of them confuse me, but you seem a little lost.

And yet it's you who are simply asserting that a word means something other than what it means without providing any evidence.

What the word really means is exactly how I know you used it incorrectly. I can understand how you might have gotten confused when you looked it up in a dictionary but couldn't understand how the word is used in a political context.


When do you take the SATs?






U.s. protectorates since world war ii - Protectorates and Spheres of Influence

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

None of them confuse me, but you seem a little lost.

And yet it's you who are simply asserting that a word means something other than what it means without providing any evidence.

What the word really means is exactly how I know you used it incorrectly. I can understand how you might have gotten confused when you looked it up in a dictionary but couldn't understand how the word is used in a political context.


When do you take the SATs?






U.s. protectorates since world war ii - Protectorates and Spheres of Influence

Tomorrow. Can't wait. Positive I'm going to nail the protectorate question.

 

[Unkotare]

And yet it's you who are simply asserting that a word means something other than what it means without providing any evidence.

What the word really means is exactly how I know you used it incorrectly. I can understand how you might have gotten confused when you looked it up in a dictionary but couldn't understand how the word is used in a political context.


When do you take the SATs?






U.s. protectorates since world war ii - Protectorates and Spheres of Influence

Tomorrow. Can't wait. Positive I'm going to nail the protectorate question.

As long as you don't have to use it in an essay question you might be alright.

 

[Circe]

Yes, South Korea is technologically superior to North Korea by far, and should be more than capable of defending themselves. Pure numbers aren't the advantage in 2013 that they once were. Regardless, even removing the U.S. troops from South Korea by no means signifies that the U.S. would simply stand by and watch as North Korea tried to invade.

There is a problem with bringing our troops home: that Armistice treaty. It does pledge tripwire troops to force American participation in a war on the Korean penninsula.

I am no more happy about that than you probably are, but I don't see how we can withdraw before a reunification of the pennisula without signifying that we are going to let South Korea twist in the wind and be overwhelmed by NK, if they can manage it.

I think we are waiting and hoping for a reunion, East Germany-style, and that would be our moment to hotfoot it off that penninsula. Unless there are advantages to having a base there against Chinese threats that I don't fully comprehend yet.

Forward power-projection bases in foreign countries is what we do since WWII -- it is the basis for Pax Americana. After two world wars they dragged us into, we decided to stop that happening again. I think it was an excellent policy, though it may now be running out as we decline: nothing lasts forever.

 

[Unkotare]

We do not have troops there because we love South Korea and they have cute girls, we are there on behalf of our own national interests (duh~ of course).

 

[Circe]

We do not have troops there because we love South Korea and they have cute girls, we are there on behalf of our own national interests (duh~ of course).

You want to inform people who think we have troops in South Korea to enjoy the cute girls that in fact we have national interests that are furthered by our stationing troops there?

What do you think those national interests are, that require our 30,000 troops?

 

[Unkotare]

We do not have troops there because we love South Korea and they have cute girls, we are there on behalf of our own national interests (duh~ of course).

You want to inform people who think we have troops in South Korea to enjoy the cute girls that in fact we have national interests that are furthered by our stationing troops there?

What do you think those national interests are, that require our 30,000 troops?

You really can't figure that one out on your own, little fella? Come on, think reeeeeeeaaaaaal hard. You can do it.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not comfortable with any country in the world having nuclear weapons. That being said, I don't see how any government currently has the moral standing to stop any other government from doing so.

No, I don't suppose anyone sophisticated thinks that. It's not really about morals so much as political pressure, I think. The idea is to limit nukes as much as possible for as long as possible, because they wider they spread, the more likely they'll be used.

I'm absolutely concerned about the fate of those troops. I urge that they be brought home immediately where they belong. That being said, South Korea itself is far superior to North Korea, technologically speaking, and, while North Korea may have superior numbers, with the U.S. backing them there's nothing North Korea can do, and North Korea knows this.

So you think the tripwire troops should come home......they are written into the Armistice treaty, of course.

You are thinking, I gather, that SK can defend itself effectively against the Million-Man Army and that our support would not be either with ground troops or by an all-out war declared by the USA. What sort of support from the U.S. were you envisioning in the event of that huge NK army crossing the DMZ and heading south? IIRC, it's only 30 miles to Seoul. They could get there very quickly.

Another thing North Korea knows is that if they do something really stupid China will not support them, which means they would stand less than no chance. So they can be as bellicose as they want, but they're not going to make any serious moves without China's blessing, and China has no interest in a real conflict with the United States right now. They're more worried about Japan and the Senkaku Islands than they are North Korea as far as I can tell.

We can't control Cuba; I don't think China can control North Korea. China hasn't been able to control Taiwan all these years either. I'm not sure rogue dictators have masters. That's not what happened last time --- last time NK just charged across the border, as we are afraid they will do now. Eventually, when our forces went north, the million Chinese poured south over their border, and forced the Armistice, but if I understand correctly, the Korean War was not China's idea, it was the first Kim's idea. A new one could be an independent action of the third Kim, I think.

The Korean War was a US idea initiated when American forces refused to allow reunification elections in Korea in 1945:

"Yuh Woon-Hyung (May 25, 1886 – July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who argued that Korean independence was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (몽양; 夢&#38525, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.' He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea."

Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Circe]

The Korean War was a US idea initiated when American forces refused to allow reunification elections in Korea in 1945:

"Yuh Woon-Hyung (May 25, 1886 – July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who argued that Korean independence was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (몽양; 夢&#38525, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.' He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea."

Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, shows what I know. [ That's it, I'm going to Amazon and find a book on the Korean War. Too little understanding of that conflict on my part for modern conditions.

 

[georgephillip]

The Korean War was a US idea initiated when American forces refused to allow reunification elections in Korea in 1945:

"Yuh Woon-Hyung (May 25, 1886 – July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who argued that Korean independence was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (몽양; 夢&#38525, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.' He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea."

Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, shows what I know. [ That's it, I'm going to Amazon and find a book on the Korean War. Too little understanding of that conflict on my part for modern conditions.

I'm far from an authority myself, but here's a link to a lefty site with some good background on US-Korea relations:

Pop Quiz on Korea

"(Choose the best answer. 3 points each. Answers at the end.)

1. In 1866 the U.S. merchant ship General Sherman defied the laws of Korea (then pursuing a policy of strict isolation) by entering Korean waters, and sailing up the Taedong River towards Pyongyang to demand trade. What happened to the ship?


a. It was attacked by local people and soldiers, burned, and sunk, with the loss of its entire crew.

b. Its crew was politely told that since Korea was a satrapy of China all negotiations concerning commerce had to take place via Beijing.

c. It was welcomed, and Korean officials began discussing with the Americans a Treaty of Amity and Commerce."

A Pop Quiz on Korea » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Circe]

Well, shows what I know. [ That's it, I'm going to Amazon and find a book on the Korean War. Too little understanding of that conflict on my part for modern conditions.

I'm far from an authority myself, but here's a link to a lefty site with some good background on US-Korea relations:

Pop Quiz on Korea

"(Choose the best answer. 3 points each. Answers at the end.)

1. In 1866 the U.S. merchant ship General Sherman defied the laws of Korea (then pursuing a policy of strict isolation) by entering Korean waters, and sailing up the Taedong River towards Pyongyang to demand trade.

The northern half is still demanding strict isolation; the South isn't, and is thriving.

I am now listening to the Hastings book, "The Korean War," and have the Halberstam, "The Coldest Winter."

 

[Circe]

This noon on CNN:

U.S.: North Korea has missile in firing position

It could be a trial run to make sure the missile works or an effort to "mess" with the United States, a U.S. official tells CNN.

Kim is sure milking this.

Even I'm beginning to get disillusioned.

How long can he keep this up before everyone gets bored?

 

[georgephillip]

Did you know there have been over 9000 missile launches since the end of WWII, and North Korea has been responsible for four; out of 2000 nuclear weapons test, the DPRK has been behind only three. Only NK has been sanctioned by the UN for nuclear tests. Maybe Kim's getting a little bored with the double standards?

North Korea?s Justifiable Anger » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Unkotare]

Did you know there have been over 9000 missile launches since the end of WWII, and North Korea has been responsible for four; out of 2000 nuclear weapons test, the DPRK has been behind only three. Only NK has been sanctioned by the UN for nuclear tests. Maybe Kim's getting a little bored with the double standards?

And maybe you're an idiot. What would concern you more, a responsible gun owner firing off 1000 rounds at a shooting range, or some mentally ill loner with a loaded six-shooter screaming "I'll kill ya, man!"

 

[Unkotare]

What's really dangerous is a liberal playing with false equivalencies.

 

[Bleipriester]

And maybe you're an idiot. What would concern you more, a responsible gun owner firing off 1000 rounds at a shooting range, or some mentally ill loner with a loaded six-shooter screaming "I'll kill ya, man!"

Sad but true, but you ain´t a "responsible gun owner" and you prove that in every war you launch. Stop launching wars, please.

 

[georgephillip]

Did you know there have been over 9000 missile launches since the end of WWII, and North Korea has been responsible for four; out of 2000 nuclear weapons test, the DPRK has been behind only three. Only NK has been sanctioned by the UN for nuclear tests. Maybe Kim's getting a little bored with the double standards?

And maybe you're an idiot. What would concern you more, a responsible gun owner firing off 1000 rounds at a shooting range, or some mentally ill loner with a loaded six-shooter screaming "I'll kill ya, man!"

Or maybe you swallow every load the corporate controlled media pours over your tonsils?

How many (millions) of US civilians did "North" Korea kill between 1950 and 1953?

 

[georgephillip]

And maybe you're an idiot. What would concern you more, a responsible gun owner firing off 1000 rounds at a shooting range, or some mentally ill loner with a loaded six-shooter screaming "I'll kill ya, man!"

Sad but true, but you ain´t a "responsible gun owner" and you prove that in every war you launch. Stop launching wars, please.

There's nothing more dangerous than US conservatives denying their history, especially those with the education and intelligence to know better. Greatest purveyor of violence on the planet..."North" Korea or the USofA?