Maybe I Missed It...Does Someone Have A Clue To What NK Is Hoping For?

[onedomino]

the idea that Iraq could be 'over ran' so easily, or even Afghanistan, considering what happened to USSR, was 'common knowledge.' It's the reason for the 'fear' of attacking. NK may well have the 6 nuclear warheads that many fear, but they do NOT have a delivery system. Not for SK, not for anywhere. That much was proved this week.

We may not be 'able' to guarantee interception into LA harbor, but we have a vastly superior record of doing so than NK has on delivering any sort of weapon to LA harbor.

We should wait until they get better at it?

Anyone who has ever read my posts on this board knows that I support the use of military force when the risk-benefit equation is reasonable. In my judgment, when the situation has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where the adversaries have nukes (NK) or economic chaos (Iran) at there command, then I believe the risks outweighs the benefits. There are no good choices and it probably comes down to containment, just as in the cold war. Although, containment only works when the adversary is rational. I do not guess that the NK regime would commit suicide, but I am not so sure about Iran. Regardless, I do not understand how you can be sure enough that NK would not be able to get a nuke to America or its allies. I do not understand how you can be sure enough that attacking NK would not yield massive SK deaths, at the very least. I would not be willing to take those risks.

 

[Gunny]

Anyone who has ever read my posts on this board knows that I support the use of military force when the risk-benefit equation is reasonable. In my judgment, when the situation has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where the adversaries have nukes (NK) or economic chaos (Iran) at there command, then I believe the risks outweighs the benefits. There are no good choices and it probably comes down to containment, just as in the cold war. Although, containment only works when the adversary is rational. I do not guess that the NK regime would commit suicide, but I am not so sure about Iran. Regardless, I do not understand how you can be sure enough that NK would not be able to get a nuke to America or its allies. I do not understand how you can be sure enough that attacking NK would not yield massive SK deaths, at the very least. I would not be willing to take those risks.

Sounds like you would prefer to live in fear than face an enemy. I think if we launched a preemptive strike against NK, they couldn't do much in response, if they even would. So far Kim il Quack only holds onto power because he has managed to get his demands conceded to in the past.

No one can guarantee a nuke can't get through. So, should we let that scare us into paralysis, or should we do what is right?

 

[onedomino]

So you're basically saying give in to them?

Nah, the hell with it Gunny. Let's just blow NK to pieces and hope that they don't kill millions of Koreans and Japanese while they are going down. Easy to gamble with their lives, right? By the way, let's just hope they don't figure out how to get a nuke to Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, or wherever you live. Containment is the only viable response. Attacking NK would be irresponsible in the extreme. If it was not, then NK would have ceased to exist many years ago.

 

[manu1959]

what is NK trying to prove......

my wife, that used to be an emt and worked in a heavy korean area belives...

the little short guy is trying to prove that his little short guy isn't (asian condoms are smaller for a reason) and that he is trying to get his rockets off..........:rotflmao:


i love my wife

 

[Annie]

Anyone who has ever read my posts on this board knows that I support the use of military force when the risk-benefit equation is reasonable. In my judgment, when the situation has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where the adversaries have nukes (NK)

How would NK threaten us, today? They haven't the delivery system. How would a NK agent enter US, to do a dirty bomb, which btw, isn't really part of the MO?

or economic chaos (Iran) at there command, then I believe the risks outweighs the benefits.

While far from a first world country, I wouldn't assign Iran to the economic grouping of NK, Somalia, or even the Phillipines. What are you basing their economic chaos on?

There are no good choices and it probably comes down to containment, just as in the cold war. Although, containment only works when the adversary is rational. I do not guess that the NK regime would commit suicide, but I am not so sure about Iran. Regardless, I do not understand how you can be sure enough that NK would not be able to get a nuke to America or its allies. I do not understand how you can be sure enough that attacking NK would not yield massive SK deaths, at the very least. I would not be willing to take those risks.

I haven't a clue how you come to these last statements, even without my questions/statements. It seems you are saying that the possibility that they might NOT be bluffing, though they probably are, you don't want to take that chance, SOooo, we should just flip over and say, "Ok, whatever you want, just say we are not a paper tiger, please." Somehow that will make all countries safer? Because????

 

[insein]

what is NK trying to prove......

my wife, that used to be an emt and worked in a heavy korean area belives...

the little short guy is trying to prove that his little short guy isn't (asian condoms are smaller for a reason) and that he is trying to get his rockets off..........:rotflmao:


i love my wife

see page 2.

 

[Mr.Conley]

While far from a first world country, I wouldn't assign Iran to the economic grouping of NK, Somalia, or even the Phillipines. What are you basing their economic chaos on?

I believe he means the economic instability that would result from the sudden worldwide surge in oil prices an invasion of Iran would tip off.

How would NK threaten us, today? They haven't the delivery system. How would a NK agent enter US, to do a dirty bomb, which btw, isn't really part of the MO?

Maybe they can't hit the US, but they can hit Seoul and its 15 million citizens. Greater Tokyo and its 20 million+ citizens. Both of those countries are our allies, and both are easily within range of North Korea's current technology, both conventionally, and unconventionally. Nuclear weapons will be able to hit both cities within a few years.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to bet 35 million lives on the chance that North Korea is bluffing.

I haven't a clue how you come to these last statements, even without my questions/statements. It seems you are saying that the possibility that they might NOT be bluffing, though they probably are, you don't want to take that chance, SOooo, we should just flip over and say, "Ok, whatever you want, just say we are not a paper tiger, please." Somehow that will make all countries safer? Because????

I think he is saying that the most reasonable option we have left is isolation. Wait them out, Cold War style.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I think Kim Jong Il sees this weapons program as leverage. It is obviously a little more difficult to pull the trigger on an invasion of a country that is capable of wiping out a major city.

Kim Jong Il said as much when he stated that Iraq would never have been invaded by the Americans if they had had nuclear weapons.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Unlike the 50's, I very much doubt that China would come to the aid of NK, we might actually be doing them a favor, though it wouldn't come through as such. Though they wouldn't come to NK's aid.

China's reaction is a big question mark here. What would China's reaction be if we took out NK's nuclear capability? I'm sure that's a question being asked at all levels in Washington.

A lot has changed in China since the Korean War, but I believe China's communist government still supports Kim Jong Il's regime. The Chinese government says it doesn't want to do anything to dissolve the government of NK because it doesn't want all those starving North Koreans coming into China to seek a livelihood/be taken care of. I think that's a flimsy and convenient excuse they have grabbed onto because they think it will wash with the U.S. because of our experience with illegal Mexicans.

 

[Annie]

I believe he means the economic instability that would result from the sudden worldwide surge in oil prices an invasion of Iran would tip off.


Maybe they can't hit the US, but they can hit Seoul and its 15 million citizens. Greater Tokyo and its 20 million+ citizens. Both of those countries are our allies, and both are easily within range of North Korea's current technology, both conventionally, and unconventionally. Nuclear weapons will be able to hit both cities within a few years.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to bet 35 million lives on the chance that North Korea is bluffing.


I think he is saying that the most reasonable option we have left is isolation. Wait them out, Cold War style.

The Cold War nearly went 'hot' a couple times between the superpowers, yet never quite. They waged it through proxy war, serial style. Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, Afghanistan being the most costly and most significant to both superpowers.

It's interesting now that so many revisionists, that used to want to focus on the 'nuclear/doomsday clock' now look back so fondly on the Cold War as a model of what we should be doing today. We did indeed avoid nuclear war at that time, in large measure because their was an underlying understanding and often respect between scientists, military, academics, and yes, even politicians.


Relationships between the Chinese, North Koreans, and most from the Middle East do not share the same commonalities as the Eastern Europeans and the West. When President Bush today said that 'we're not sure what it is that Kim thought he could gain by this...' I think he's serious. It's true that both Russia and China may have more understanding of his thinking, if so they really need to articulate it, even for the French.

 

[1549]

oooooooo..... we hurt poor wittle Kim Jong Il's wittle feelings!!!! Boo-Hoo!

This just shows how much you lefties fall for Kim Jong Il's propaganda. You lefties are like Pavlov's dogs, you're so used to blaming America for everything, you do it automatically, almost as if by reflex. I'm starting to think every time someone rings a doorbell, you lefties start to drool.....

No, it's not because we invaded Iraq and it's not because we called his regime evil. His regime IS evil, they have more death camps than the Nazis ever did, they do bio and chemical weapons testing on prisoners, they're starving their population, especially kids.

No, Beloved Hemorrhoid started pursuing nuclear weapons technology right after the "agreed framework" he made with the Clinton Administration back in 1994. Back then, he promised NOT to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for nuclear technology... that was 9 years before Iraq, several years before Bush's "axis of evil" speech and while GWB was governor of the state of Texas.

It's a good thing we don't act like Beloved Butthead and launch a missile each time someone called America "the Great Satan", blamed us for all the evil in the world, or called Bush bad names. If we did, we'd need so many missiles, if placed end to end, they'd go to Pluto and back about a thousand times.

I did not criticize Bush's words at all. I think your conservative eyes just took my post out of context.

I looked at the situation from a North Korean viewpoint: the U.S. is a threat and nuclear weapons could possibly prevent an invasion.

I made reference to the 'axis of evil speech' because it shows that the U.S. is an immenent threat to North Korea which would justify a nuclear build up.

Should they build nuclear weapons...no. But does it make sense for them to do so? Yes. North Korea knows that a successful delivery method would force its democratic neighbors and the U.S. to think twice about an invasion.

I don't blame Bush for the problem. Obtaining nuclear weapons is like buying a handgun on a much larger scale...it forces enemies (like the U.S., South Korea, and Japan) to use a lot of discretion.

 

[Mr.Conley]

It's interesting now that so many revisionists, that used to want to focus on the 'nuclear/doomsday clock' now look back so fondly on the Cold War as a model of what we should be doing today. We did indeed avoid nuclear war at that time, in large measure because their was an underlying understanding and often respect between scientists, military, academics, and yes, even politicians.

Relationships between the Chinese, North Koreans, and most from the Middle East do not share the same commonalities as the Eastern Europeans and the West. When President Bush today said that 'we're not sure what it is that Kim thought he could gain by this...' I think he's serious. It's true that both Russia and China may have more understanding of his thinking, if so they really need to articulate it, even for the French.

You can love the Cold War or hate the Cold War, all I know is that it didn't result in a nuclear war.

MAD is still in effect, nuclear weapons are for having, not using. The Chinese realize this, and I think North Korea does as well.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

nuclear weapons are for having, not using.

And I see you have that same philosophy re: your brain. :cof:

 

[Annie]

You can love the Cold War or hate the Cold War, all I know is that it didn't result in a nuclear war.

MAD is still in effect, nuclear weapons are for having, not using. The Chinese realize this, and I think North Korea does as well.

So you believe that if Kim had a nuclear warhead and a missile that could deliver it, he wouldn't use it? That must be the underlying belief in MAD. For the time being I agree with you on China. China is a different case altogether, not that we understand each other any better. They do NOT have an inferiority complex and they certainly do not go out of their way to call attention to themselves.

 

[Mr.Conley]

So you believe that if Kim had a nuclear warhead and a missile that could deliver it, he wouldn't use it?

Yes, think about it, what does Kim have to gain from using a nuclear weapon, exspecially against the United States? If Kim pulls that, then the entire international community is going to condemn him, the US will invade him, and the Chinese and the Russians won't be able to drag their feet. Sure he might off a couple million people, but I doubt Kim would sacrifice his own life and position just to see Los Angeles burn.

That must be the underlying belief in MAD.

Well technically it's that each side realizes that the other is so powerful that even though they could destroy the other, it would also guarantee their own destruction. Nukes are for having and not using stems from that.

For the time being I agree with you on China. China is a different case altogether, not that we understand each other any better.

Exactly, China will never nuke the United States. MAD is in effect.

They do NOT have an inferiority complex and they certainly do not go out of their way to call attention to themselves.

True, but North Korea realizes that the attention you get from launching a nuclear missle is not the kind of attention you want.

 

[Annie]

Yes, think about it, what does Kim have to gain from using a nuclear weapon, exspecially against the United States? If Kim pulls that, then the entire international community is going to condemn him, the US will invade him, and the Chinese and the Russians won't be able to drag their feet. Sure he might off a couple million people, but I doubt Kim would sacrifice his own life and position just to see Los Angeles burn.

Well technically it's that each side realizes that the other is so powerful that even though they could destroy the other, it would also guarantee their own destruction. Nukes are for having and not using stems from that.

Exactly, China will never nuke the United States. MAD is in effect.

True, but North Korea realizes that the attention you get from launching a nuclear missle is not the kind of attention you want.

I think you underestimate the lessons Kim has already learned and seems likely to keep being reinforced on. But, I think you will be happy as I'm quite certain that he is going to be rewarded again. Iran is watching, intently.

 

[onedomino]

How would NK threaten us, today? They haven't the delivery system. How would a NK agent enter US, to do a dirty bomb, which btw, isn't really part of the MO? While far from a first world country, I wouldn't assign Iran to the economic grouping of NK, Somalia, or even the Phillipines. What are you basing their economic chaos on? I haven't a clue how you come to these last statements, even without my questions/statements. It seems you are saying that the possibility that they might NOT be bluffing, though they probably are, you don't want to take that chance, SOooo, we should just flip over and say, "Ok, whatever you want, just say we are not a paper tiger, please." Somehow that will make all countries safer? Because????

It is not just the case of NK threatening the US. We must consider the ramifications on SK and Japan if the US attacks NK. If the US performs combat induced regime change on NK, there will still be massive civilian deaths in SK (at a minimum) and probably Japan. Seoul is just a few miles from the DMZ. How many times must I point out that there are 15 million people in Seoul? NK has thousands of artillery pieces pointed at the city (along with other weapons). These artillery pieces can fire chemical and biological weapons. Not even the US Air Force can act quickly enough to avoid the huge number of civilian deaths that would result. As far as delivering nukes, no one should gamble the ports of Los Angeles or Tokyo against the HOPE that a NK sub could not get close enough to cause massive damage and create radioactive wastelands that could not be occupied for hundreds of years. The nuclear horse has left the barn. There is no military solution to the NK problem that does not include massive civilian death. The fact is that NK has always had effective deterrence, even before its possession of nukes. It had the human shields in Seoul and the rest of the SK peninsula. The purpose of the recent NK missile launches is to extort commodities, cash, technology, etc. from the US and Japan. We must not comply. Instead, we can isolate and contain NK. The only way forward is to deploy a robust ABM system for America and our Asian allies. NK knows it will be destroyed if it attacks. The policy of containing and isolating NK has worked for 50 years and it will continue to work until NK finally withers and dies like the former Soviet Union.

Regarding an attack on Iran, the result would be economic chaos as oil soars above 100/bbl. (probably far above). Is an attack on Iran worth a worldwide recession, or worse? Maybe. I am more willing to support an attack on Iran than NK. The Iran nuke genie is still in the bottle and unlike NK, they have no easy combat access to a large, nearby, allied population center. The populations of Seoul, Tokyo, Seattle, etc., will survive a recession or depression, but Seoul, for example, will not survive combat induced NK regime change and that is just too high a price to pay. It is better to isolate (as the President and Rice keep mentioning) and contain. It is the only option that has a chance of avoiding a massive number of civilian deaths.

 

[Inquisitive One]

Given the report that the long range missile, which failed, was aimed at the waters off Hawaii, we also should consider whether Kim Jong Il is mad enough that he doesn't consider the consequences of MAD. I could understand if Iranian president Ahmadinejad used a nuke because I really do feel that he's a religious zealot who would like to hasten the return of his Mahdi. However, I cannot understand what Kim Jong Il's motive or madness is.

 

[Annie]

It is not just the case of NK threatening the US. We must consider the ramifications on SK and Japan if the US attacks NK. If the US performs combat induced regime change on NK, there will still be massive civilian deaths in SK (at a minimum) and probably Japan. Seoul is just a few miles from the DMZ. How many times must I point out that there are 15 million people in Seoul? NK has thousands of artillery pieces pointed at the city (along with other weapons). These artillery pieces can fire chemical and biological weapons. Not even the US Air Force can act quickly enough to avoid the huge number of civilian deaths that would result. As far as delivering nukes, no one should gamble the ports of Los Angeles or Tokyo against the HOPE that a NK sub could not get close enough to cause massive damage and create radioactive wastelands that could not be occupied for hundreds of years. The nuclear horse has left the barn. There is no military solution to the NK problem that does not include massive civilian death. The fact is that NK has always had effective deterrence, even before its possession of nukes. It had the human shields in Seoul and the rest of the SK peninsula. The purpose of the recent NK missile launches is to extort commodities, cash, technology, etc. from the US and Japan. We must not comply. Instead, we can isolate and contain NK. The only way forward is to deploy a robust ABM system for America and our Asian allies. NK knows it will be destroyed if it attacks. The policy of containing and isolating NK has worked for 50 years and it will continue to work until NK finally withers and dies like the former Soviet Union.

Regarding an attack on Iran, the result would be economic chaos as oil soars above 100/bbl. (probably far above). Is an attack on Iran worth a worldwide recession, or worse? Maybe. I am more willing to support an attack on Iran than NK. The Iran nuke genie is still in the bottle and unlike NK, they have no easy combat access to a large, nearby, allied population center. The populations of Seoul, Tokyo, Seattle, etc., will survive a recession or depression, but Seoul, for example, will not survive combat induced NK regime change and that is just too high a price to pay. It is better to isolate (as the President and Rice keep mentioning) and contain. It is the only option that has a chance of avoiding a massive number of civilian deaths.

If the 'world' would back a blockade, exempting food and aid, that would be fit punishment. NK should not be able to deal arms, send out money or drugs via shipping. IF that was done, that would be good, but China and Russia are not likely to go there.

Instead, 'diplomatic' talks are likely to result in what Kim wanted, I really have no doubt on that. As I said, the price for that is not NK as much as Iran.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I think you underestimate the lessons Kim has already learned and seems likely to keep being reinforced on. But, I think you will be happy as I'm quite certain that he is going to be rewarded again. Iran is watching, intently.

Where did you get the idea that I wanted to reward him. I'm saying that we can't attack him without massive allied civilian casualties.

If the 'world' would back a blockade, exempting food and aid, that would be fit punishment. NK should not be able to deal arms, send out money or drugs via shipping. IF that was done, that would be good, but China and Russia are not likely to go there.

Instead, 'diplomatic' talks are likely to result in what Kim wanted, I really have no doubt on that. As I said, the price for that is not NK as much as Iran.

I blockade would be ideal in many ways, but you'd have to get China and Russia to agree to block any shipments over their border as well. That would be difficult. Things are looking a bit up though, apparently the North Koreans launched this missle despite Chinese protests earlier in the week. We could see a cooling in Chinese/North Korean relations.