North Korean Missle Launched at Hawaii!

TOKYO — The long-range Taepodong-2 was part of a barrage of seven missiles test-fired by North Korea on Wednesday. They all fell harmlessly into the Sea of Japan, but South Korean officials said the long-range missile had malfunctioned, suggesting it was intended for a more remote target.

Japan's conservative mainstream daily Sankei said that Japanese and U.S. defense officials have concluded that the Taepodong-2 had targeted the U.S. state of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean, after analyzing data collected from their intelligence equipment.

The newspaper quoted unidentified Japanese and U.S. government officials.

The officials decided that the missile was pointed at Hawaii from its angle immediately after launch and the altitude it reached, after analyzing data collected by destroyers equipped with the Aegis radar combat system and RC-135S electronic reconnaissance aircraft, the newspaper said.

It said the findings support a belief North Korean intended the launch as a protest over U.S. economic sanctions against the isolated regime.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202469,00.html




TOKYO (Reuters) - A North Korean missile launched on Wednesday was aimed at an area of the ocean close to Hawaii, a Japanese newspaper reported on Friday.
Experts estimated the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile to have a range of up to 6,000 km, putting Alaska within its reach. Wednesday's launch apparently failed shortly after take-off and the missile landed in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan, a few hundred kilometres from the launch pad.

But data from U.S. and Japanese Aegis radar-equipped destroyers and surveillance aircraft on the missile's angle of take-off and altitude indicated that it was heading for waters near Hawaii, the Sankei Shimbun reported, citing multiple sources in the United States and Japan.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060707/3/2mty8.html



I am not liking this one bit.

So was it *at* Hawaii like Fox says, or *near* Hawaii like everyone else says?

If it was in protest of economic sanctions like the article says I find that very stupid on their part.

Because instead of economic sanctions there would be a very large, international force bearing down on their butts, and they wouldn't just play havoc on the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

So was it *at* Hawaii like Fox says, or *near* Hawaii like everyone else says?

---

Let's hope it was just near, otherwise s*** is going to hit the fan.

Edit: Thinking about it, both are bad. If it landed in US waters that's not good.

This isn't a smart move by N. Korea. I guess its like everyone else said Kim is crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

So was it *at* Hawaii like Fox says, or *near* Hawaii like everyone else says?

---

Does it really matter?

How would you like a NK missle landing off the coast *near*, say, San Diego?

Did they aim for our new park?

:embarassed:

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...0341/1001/NEWS

That's it. We should all chip in and buy these for those poor souls at Fox News.

Some of you could probably see a benefit in using them too. :laugh4:

The difference between near and at is the difference between a shot across the bow and a declaration of war.

NK negotiates from the hip, it ain't bright but then again it gets enough results to keep the hierachy in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

How would you like a NK missle landing off the coast *near*, say, San Diego?

---

ahem.

Or off the coast of Brisbane for that matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

If North Korea launches a missile, and it actually lands in our waters, I say we respond with a conventional missile attack the likes of which make World War II Firebombing look like the work of Ametuers. They're getting too bold.

---

Agreed. Diplomacy is good, but when a country starts launching missiles that could be tipped with nuclear warheads into your waters, its time to do something.

Well at least Australia can squeeze China's trade nuts to make them squeeze NK's.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! This is just so wonderfully ironic. All those "sky is falling" comments here whenever anyone doesn't toe the Fox party line about things like global warming or pollution or anything else. And yet, here the usual suspects are, running about and squealing like 3rd grade girls who've just touched a snake during Show-and-Tell. Life is good. It just doesn't get any funnier than this. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

If North Korea launches a missile, and it actually lands in our waters, I say we respond with a conventional missile attack the likes of which make World War II Firebombing look like the work of Ametuers. They're getting too bold.

---

Agreed something must be done about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! This is just so wonderfully ironic. All those "sky is falling" comments here whenever anyone doesn't toe the Fox party line about things like global warming or pollution or anything else. And yet, here the usual suspects are, running about and squealing like 3rd grade girls who've just touched a snake during Show-and-Tell. Life is good. It just doesn't get any funnier than this. :laugh4:

---

It's not just fox...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! This is just so wonderfully ironic. All those "sky is falling" comments here whenever anyone doesn't toe the Fox party line about things like global warming or pollution or anything else. And yet, here the usual suspects are, running about and squealing like 3rd grade girls who've just touched a snake during Show-and-Tell. Life is good. It just doesn't get any funnier than this. :laugh4:

---

Flaming posters with no factual retort.

I posted two articles from two seperate sources.

You are far smarter than this Aenlic. Give us a real argument and elevate the debate. Thanks. :bow:

The factual retort is in the other threads, Eclectic, which you know full well.

For example.

The missile failed.

The missile was not under control when it failed.

The North Koreans don't have, and probably won't have for some time, a nuclear device which can be mounted on any of their missiles which would still work when it reached the target. As I said in another thread, it took us 14 years to develop our first ICBM, which was huge compared to the TP-2, and that was with a dedicated budget many times larger than the entire NK economy.

I don't see why I should have to come repeat this stuff - again, to satisfy what is basically a "sky is falling" thread. If the Right wants to use "the sky is falling" as a rhetorical device, then I can too. Simply as that. And be very careful before saying that "the sky is falling" isn't a favorite around here. :grin:

And besides, I'm pretty sure if you all pool your funds, you can get these at a volume discount. :wink:

I'de rather not wear an aluminum foil hat thanks.

But it'll protect you from evil communist lefty-liberal TV and Hollywood rays beamed at your skull in an attempt to make you read Mao. And those crafty North Koreans might be launching mind-control missiles which could hit Hawaii! (More likely than a nuclear tipped TP-2 reaching it). You must plan ahead! Buy one that will fit over the NBC suit which Proletariat says are easy to put on! Even during the midst of a North Korean NBC attack! :laugh4:

Just sword-rattling - moreover, I highly doubt that the North Koreans actually intended the missile to hit Hawaii.
I'm pretty sure that, had they actually wanted to declare war, and start a nuclear war, it wouldn't have been 7 crappy missiles failing all over the place. Dontcha think ?

Besides, keep in mind that they're crazy, not stupid.
This was just a show: "Rook at my great barrz of fire !"
I don't think they actually took the chance to, you know, mistakenly start a nuclear war. Give them more credit.

One more thing: this saber-rattling probably reached its purpose: they got all the publicity they wanted, and now they'll have a slightly stronger position in the negotiations: they will generously "concede" to stop such tests and displays, maybe even scrap some old armament as a gesture of goodwill, in exchange for - whatever the heck they are interested in, economic help, getting people off their backs for a while longer, whatever.

Oh well around 3-4 months ago, a similar scenario was played and it was told that some Syrian missiles had bombed somewhere in the Turkish borders close to Syria.

Israel and USA love disinformation and manipulation before starting out something. This can be all about creating the causes of war, dragging in another ally by a "wicked" force and watch the game as it boils there.

Luckily that news was falsified -probably by our intelligence, I guess. Nothing serious happened.

North Korea may be dirty but it all seems irrational that they would try to bomb Hawaii resulting in a war against USA.

Come on, how many of you can really believe this ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Unlike some certain other countries, our press (Fox News excepting) is free.

Anyhow, all this talk of "They won't have nukes for YEARS!" is absolutely ridiculous. What do you propose to do? Wait for them to actually get them? And then what?

This is not Iraq. This is not a hypothetical. They have nukes. They are trying to put them on long-range missiles. They are just crazy enough to go through with it.

The next time they pull a stunt like this, we should blow up every power plant, nuclear facility, and government building in that entire country.

---

The sky is falling ! ~;p (sorry, Aenlic, couldn't help it).
Come on, Gelatinous Cube, nobody's denying they're crazy, or that they have nukes.
And of course one shouldn't just bend over and hand the lube tube.
But, you also have to realize that bombing the hell out of everybody who gives you a dirty look is not a solution, either.
Nobody in that area likes, or is comfy, with NK. China, Japan, SK (duh) are only a few (who matter). So rest assured that they (as well as your military satellites, etc) will keep a keen eye on the North Koreans.
Besides, what makes you think that they are eager to start a war with the US?
They have several juicier targets nearby... What, because they launched "a missile at Hawaii ?" Please. So they launched several at Japan. Have they started a war with Japan ?

Again, imo, they are just trying to show off, both for gaining/maintaining internal support, and to gain a stronger position at the negotiation table.

Besides, you're intelligent enough to realize that you cannot stop _everybody_ from _ever_ getting nukes. Technology advances - the US will get some uber missiles, the others will be some decades or whatever behind, and will eventually get what the US has now.
You simply cannot control all the crazies, the dictatorships, and whatever other nutjob regimes are out there. And you can't just bomb them out just like that, either. And the US and the entire world will have to deal with this in a different way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Anyone who has followed my politics on this forum knows I have trouble reconciling my Libertarian beleifs with the belief that America needs to do its best to remain #1.

I have never had a problem with playing World Police, so long as it is done in a transparent and non-hypocritical manner. If the President said "Hey, dudes. We're gonna go stomp on all the other nations of the world in order to make America better." I'd be all for it.

North Korea is case in point for me, really. They are a wild-card, very close to our interests, that espouses no real freedom for its people or democratic values at all. And they have nukes.

As a threat, they should be nuetralized. IMO the best way to do it would be to pull out of the Middle-East, put all our assets in South Korea, Bomb the hell out of the country, invade, and put it all under the control of South Korea when we're done.

We could keep China at bay easily, by threatening to get that $200 Billion worth of cheap goods elsewhere. Even temporarily, it'd send their economy into a tail spin, and they don't want that.

---

Sigh. Ok, one at a time.

I absolutely see your point about America wanting to remain #1. It's perfectly normal. But where the hell does NK come into the equation ??? What does NK have to do with the US'wish tostay on top ?? Don't tell me you're afraid that you'll lose the top dog position from North Korea...

Quote:

---

As a threat, they should be nuetralized.

---

But they are not a threat ! That's the whole idea. Ok, they are a threat, to SK, to Japan, etc, but not to the US. Not yet, anyway, and they're years away from it.

Quote:

---

We could keep China at bay easily, by threatening to get that $200 Billion worth of cheap goods elsewhere. Even temporarily, it'd send their economy into a tail spin, and they don't want that.

---

Let me add to that:

Quote:

---

Even temporarily, it'd send your economy into a tail spin, and you don't want that.

---

Btw, Cube, please don't take it personally, it's not like I have anything against you, or anything like that (I am saying that because we had another discussion where we were on opposing sides recently, in the "Mercury in the fish and the truth about advertising" thread).
Ok ? I hope you didn't perceive it otherwise. :bow:

Not like it matters which sea the missile was aiming for, since the USA's military is stretched way too thin and it's budget is all shot to Hell thanks to the war on Iraq, hence the USA can't do anything about NK at the moment.

Hmmm

Methinks that if this is true it is 'only' an attempt to intimidate the US. Demonstrating that the missile could reach Hawaii would help their position no?
Or possibly make it much much worse.

Quote:

---

We wouldn't be as hurt as the Chinese. We have the pull the potential to alleviate the problem long enough to ruin China while keeping ourselves afloat. Worst case, both our economies are ruined beyond any hope of repair in a timely fashion. China wouldn't risk that, either.

---

I don't think that the US would risk that.

I Can Just See it Now.

Kim all cozy in his palace, looking at 128 inch LCD Monitor Displaying a Map of the World.

"How Will I teach these Americans a lesson?" He paces back and forth, running his fingers through his 50s Style Elvis Presley haircut, adjust his glasses and frowns.

"The Only Way We can teach these Americans a Lesson is to attack Pearl Harbour!"

I hate to admit it, but I think that Bush is actually handling it rather well; at least, if this CNN article is true. I didn't watch Larry King drool and babble at him. Both of them give me a rash when I see them. The thought of King and Bush babbling at each other was too much to handle.:no:

However, Bush-hating vitriol out of the way, the idea that we should treat this with a sort of international response to a childish call for attention seems about right to me.

Clearly Kim is doing the chest-thumping primate thing. A nuclear "look at me!" combined with a need to maintain status with his military.

I think that now, Kim will be facing even more pressure to return to the multilateral talks. And China will be facing more diplomatic pressure as well to lean on NK in that regard.

The last thing we'll do is respond militarily. That gives Kim too much return on his investment in the chest-thumping. Short of us turning NK into a radioactive glass parking lot, I don't think Kim really sees much negative to being attacked by the U.S. at all. Unless it's a full-on hardcore all-or-nothing attack, he doesn't really lose much. And he gets to lay claim to "injured" party status, however wrong and ridiculous. Status is not something we'll be handing him any time soon.

And the second to the last thing we'll do is agree to bilateral talks and give him rewards for his behavior.

It'll be the multilateral talks. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Japan and South Korea are very important to American interests. Important enough to risk war for.

---

A war in which, if I may remind you, they would get axed, along with all the forces you base in SK or Japan. Why? Because, while NK doesn't have nukes that can be mounted on an ICBM, they do have nukes.

So, will you still think that they are important allies when Seoul and Tokyo have been turned to glass?

I would advise the Americans to think of their allies for a change. Not everyone will go around risking their neck just because America says so. An America which is not even threatened by the country in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

At this juncture in time, North Korea does not have the capacity to deliver a nuke to Japan. Even putting one in Seoul would be pretty hard, if we struck fast and hard.

---

I agree about Japan, but Seoul? They can lob one there with a catapult, it's so close.

Besides, they can always use the messy type against the forces advancing on them. Like, say, the US Army coming up the border. Boom ... several hundred thousand dead in an instant.

Don't get me wrong, but this is a hypothetical discussion ... for the moment.

You might want to take a look at Redleg's posts in this thread before fantasizing too much about an easy surprise attack.

It's nice BTW, that you would be willing to risk the destruction of Seoul ... South Koreans might think a bit differently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Why not go for the next best option then? Pull something out of a Tom Clancy book, and smartbomb the houses and headquarters of all the people running the show.

---

I'm not sure this is entirely fanciful. Whilst the chances of hitting the key men from the air are very low and such an attack would greatly escalate the odds of war, a covert operation might succeed. The old art of political assassination is largely ignored these days, but a very useful tool when dealing with leaders like Kim.

We should have been infiltrating sleepers with this mission some time ago, but a strike against key members of the hierarchy would produce a significant confusion, that might be exploited for advantage. It's by no means easy to get past such a secret state, but even discovered agents would get a man like Kim wildly paranoid but internally focussed if they could be presented as internal dissidents.

Of course, it might produce a worse leader, but in this case, I doubt that's possible.

... under Kim's leadership, surely the top dog apart from him would be a co-nut? And so an assassination would just lead to yet another nut on top of the NK hierarchy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

North Korea is notorious for being unstable, isn't it? If the leadership was killed off, who would authorize the nukes? Or even the war? Then we could rush 'em while they were confused.

But to be perfectly clear, I don't know jack shit about Military Strategy/Tactics, beyond what i've absorbed reading history books. I would support a war against North Korea for moral and geo-political reasons, and am confident that our military is strong enough to get the job done.

---

It's a long flight form Iraq to the Korean peninsula, though. And I'm certain that the Iraqi government might be a bit alarmed to wake up and find us gone and on our way elsewhere. That's how many it would take. NK has the 5th largest military in the world, right behind Russia. They have about 300,000 fewer active duty troops than we do. That's active military. If you add in reserves for both the U.S. and NK, they actually have about twice as many active and reserve together than we do (~6 million to our ~3 million). We don't have the troops. Especially not with so many in Iraq.

As Redleg said, this isn't a case of some cakewalk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

... under Kim's leadership, surely the top dog apart from him would be a co-nut? And so an assassination would just lead to yet another nut on top of the NK hierarchy?

---

It's possible, but Stalinist leaders tend to be very good at getting rid of any but sycophants. The next in line would likely be an obsequious know-nothing who wasn't any sort of threat to Kim.

The trouble with building a cult of personality is that when that personality disappears, the people don't know who to believe in. Takes a long time for a new guy to establish, and meanwhile, many others believe that they deserve a shot at the top job. Cue internal in-fighting.

And the fella that finally came out on top might figure out that his best bet to stay there was to be nice to the US, and make some good money out of the process. Self-interest is a lovely thing.

After all, he'd know that the US had been able to bump off Kim, and therefore could do the same to him.

Much tidier than invading, IMO.

If Alaska and Hawaii was completely destroyed it still wouldn't have anywhere near the impact on the US economy if Seoul and Tokyo were leveled. Some of the comments in this and the other NK threads are beyond absurd.

"If we could build up without North Korea noticing" It's a peninsular. I think that they'd notice the increase in ships and planes, plus movement towards the front line.
"Assasinate the boss". OK, you go into the most insular society on the planet ppulated with fanatics. Then blend in with a stunted population, get to one of the most guarded men on the planet and kill him. Oh, and North Korea then peacefully folds. They worship the dead founder. So nothing can alter that hero worship as the guy's dead already.

America would accept 100,000 soldiers dead? Doubt it. Iraq is causing enough of a problem. Oh, and I doubt any allies are going to join in that holocaust just to remain mates with America.

~:smoking:

Great.....
Just what I need, the freaking North Koreans launching missiles at me! Just hope they weren't targeting my island. The island of Kauai has the Pacific missile range of the US so maybe that was a show of their ability to hit our missiles as well.

I wonder when the US media will forget all about North Korea again, haven't heard a word about Iran in a few weeks despite the fact that nothing with them has been resolved.

Kim Jong-Il's pretege is his son Kim Jong-chul, but little is know about him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proleteriat

If Alaska and Hawaii was completely destroyed it still wouldn't have anywhere near the impact on the US economy if Seoul and Tokyo were leveled. Some of the comments in this and the other NK threads are beyond absurd.

---

I don't know why we aren't doing something about him now? He could destroy the world economy just by starting a war, which he could do by even having one soldier shoot an enemy. I mean we are on the brinck of sudden change that will take years to repaire, and no body is willing to do anything?

https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/...ealbright7.jpg

Ching Ching!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spmtla

I wonder when the US media will forget all about North Korea again.

---

Probably next time they need people to be concerned about gays or "violent" video games again.

If war breaks out, Seoul will be leveled to the ground. It's that simple. They don't need nukes, they already have thousends of artillery pieces pointed over the border. Any strategy focussing around "striking them so fast they won't know what hit them" is doomed to fail. Suppose if you're the officer in charge of the artillery, will you risk that everything fails in the event that you die? I'd have ordered the soldiers to blast Seoul into pieces as soon as they're positive that NK has been attacked, or haven't received orders for say 6 hours.

NK's situation is terminal, for all we know the regime collapses tomorrow. The US would be stupid not to try to avoid war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

I don't know why we aren't doing something about him now? He could destroy the world economy just by starting a war, which he could do by even having one soldier shoot an enemy. I mean we are on the brinck of sudden change that will take years to repaire, and no body is willing to do anything?

---

We're not doing anything because there are zero military options and the 6 party talks are a joke. Shows how stupid all the 'OMFG KOREA HAD WMDS AND YOU WENT TO IRAQ?!?!!1' arguments are.

What do you think can be done that isn't being tried, BP?

edit: speling

Cry havoc, and let slip the kegogiis of war! (Hamlet, the Korean version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

What do you think can be done that isn't being tried, BP?

---

Put more sanctions, and target bomb Kim Jong Il. The leadership will be confused and the army will be starving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat
What do you think can be done that isn't being tried, BP?

---

We could just wait for the ole' boy to die. He doesn't look well in any of the pictures IMO. In the meantime, we should just ignore North Korea to death, that is to say every nation, completely. I would also put a boomer or two off the coast and let them surface within sight of the Korean navy and have the crews wave and give them some moons, while slapping their buttcheeks.
:thinking2:
That North Korean is a complete :dunce: IMO. Is he trying to cause WWIII? What a lunatic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Put more sanctions, and target bomb Kim Jong Il. The leadership will be confused and the army will be starving.

---

That would gaurantee Seoul and prolly Tokyo being leveled. I like Rotor's idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Put more sanctions, and target bomb Kim Jong Il. The leadership will be confused and the army will be starving.

---

This leads to the destruction of Seoul, South Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

We're not doing anything because there are zero military options and the 6 party talks are a joke.

---

I wonder how many here understand why the 6 Party talks are a joke? Its important for any talks with North Korea to be with their primary trading partner and backer. Without China no economic sanctions will actually work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rotorgun

I would also put a boomer or two off the coast and let them surface within sight of the Korean navy and have the crews wave and give them some moons, while slapping their buttcheeks.

---

I like. Please advice the Joint Chief of Staff of your suggestion. :2thumbsup:

There's an interesting article today on CNN.com about Japan's response to North Korea. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html

Some interesting things in there. Looks like I need to go digging around the FAS web site. I didn't know that Japan had such a capability. Clearly they have space launch capabilities; but how quickly could they convert them to a military use. Maybe they already have. And thinking about that, Japan could even have nuclear capability. Their civilian nuclear power program is based on enriched plutonium. The step from there to a bomb is what we're worried about in Iran. I wonder if Japan might not be a stealth nuclear power with a very robust space program. Very interesting indeed.


Other stuff in the story.

China is leaning harder on North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I wonder how many here understand why the 6 Party talks are a joke? Its important for any talks with North Korea to be with their primary trading partner and backer. Without China no economic sanctions will actually work.

---

I agree regarding China's importance; but I'm not sure I'd characterize the 6-party talks as a joke. They allow everyone to appear engaged. The U.S. and Japan and South Korea and the rest are in them because they won't take place just on China's initiative alone. We're there to bring China there so China can have an affect. The U.S. will, of course, never agree to bilateral talks with NK, because they serve no purpose other than to boost Kim's status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotogun

I would also put a boomer or two off the coast and let them surface within sight of the Korean navy and have the crews wave and give them some moons, while slapping their buttcheeks.

---

Heh! Absolutely. Better yet, make it a multinational buttcheek slapping. A U.S. boomer, a Russian Typhoon (if they have any left that are still sea worthy and not sitting rusting in the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky sub graveyard), and maybe even convince China to include one of their Xia-class SSBNs. Now that would be something to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

There's an interesting article today on CNN.com about Japan's response to North Korea. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html

Some interesting things in there. Looks like I need to go digging around the FAS web site. I didn't know that Japan had such a capability. Clearly they have space launch capabilities; but how quickly could they convert them to a military use. Maybe they already have. And thinking about that, Japan could even have nuclear capability. Their civilian nuclear power program is based on enriched plutonium. The step from there to a bomb is what we're worried about in Iran. I wonder if Japan might not be a stealth nuclear power with a very robust space program. Very interesting indeed.

---

Interesting indeed. Japan may not have the biggest rep for basic research, but their ability to hone a known technology and enhance quality and performance is legendary. Seems like the only thing stopping a Japanese nuclear arsenal is their own views on their constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

I agree regarding China's importance; but I'm not sure I'd characterize the 6-party talks as a joke. They allow everyone to appear engaged. The U.S. and Japan and South Korea and the rest are in them because they won't take place just on China's initiative alone. We're there to bring China there so China can have an affect. The U.S. will, of course, never agree to bilateral talks with NK, because they serve no purpose other than to boost Kim's status.

---

Many (most?) Americans are Jacksonian towards opponents -- we don't like the pace of diplomacy and are annoyed at the bribery qualities it sometimes has.

Thing is, there’s really not much Bush can do about Kim’s stockpile, especially militarily, as any strike would immediately result in Seoul’s destruction, assaults on Japan, and God knows what else. Indeed, a resumption of the Korean war would be a very bad thing all around, which is why Bush is reduced to telling Kim, “We expect you to adhere to international norms,” a command that is both laughable and serious — laughable in the sense that Bush is instructing anyone on global etiquette, but serious in that such blazing hypocrisy is indeed the “international norm.”

Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

I wonder why its called that its not the peoples republic its ruled by one man makes no sense to me.:no:

Need China cooperating for any talks to have effect. Without them any economic threats are hot air.

Any overt military action would severely damage South Korea and Japan; not something the US would allow in any case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Some interesting things in there. Looks like I need to go digging around the FAS web site. I didn't know that Japan had such a capability. Clearly they have space launch capabilities; but how quickly could they convert them to a military use. Maybe they already have. And thinking about that, Japan could even have nuclear capability. Their civilian nuclear power program is based on enriched plutonium. The step from there to a bomb is what we're worried about in Iran. I wonder if Japan might not be a stealth nuclear power with a very robust space program. Very interesting indeed.

---

Certainly intriguing.

As the north koreans seem so in accurate with hitting there targets apparently what are the chance that they may hit another country with out meaning to then what ? if they hit japan the americans will probably help japan and that also means i expect england will join with them 2 .Also if there was a war between north korea and one of its neighbours who would join with them is there anyone or are they on there own

From the Official North Korean State "News" Agency:

Quote:

---

DPRK Foreign Ministry Refutes "Resolution of UN Security Council"
Pyongyang, July 16 (KCNA) -- The Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea issued today the following statement vehemently denouncing and totally refuting the "resolution" of the UN Security Council against the DPRK, a product of the U.S. hostile policy toward it: The vicious hostile policy of the United States towards the DPRK and the irresponsibility of the UN Security Council have created an extremely dangerous situation on the Korean Peninsula where the sovereignty of the Korean nation and the security of the state have been seriously infringed.
The U.S. has recently kicked up much row after bringing the issue of the missile launches conducted by our army as part of the routine military training for self-defence to the UN under the motto of reacting to it in one voice. It was against this backdrop that the U.S. forced the UN to adopt a UN Security Council resolution taking a serious note of our exercise of its right to self-defence on July 15.
The U.S. sponsored "resolution" called for an international pressure for disarming the DPRK and stifling it, terming the missile launches pertaining to its right to self-defence "a threat to international peace and security".
By doing so the U.S. sought to describe the issue between the DPRK and the U.S. as an issue between the DPRK and the UN and form an international alliance against the DPRK.
This has brought such serious consequences as gravely violating the dignity and sovereignty of the DPRK and driving the situation to an extreme pitch of tension, thereby seriously disturbing peace and security on the peninsula and in Northeast Asia.
It was an entirely unreasonable and brigandish act that the U.S. brought to the UN the DPRK's missile launches nothing contradictory to any international law after branding them as a violation.
This time the U.S. attempted till the last moment to apply Chapter 7 of the UN Charter legalizing a military action against the DPRK. This indicates that the "resolution" constitutes a prelude to the provocation of the second Korean war.
It is a brigandish logic to claim that missile launches conducted by the U.S. and Japan are legal while the training of missile launches conducted by the DPRK to defend itself is illegal.
Any missile fire or any nuclear test approved by the U.S. is connived at and they are not subject to discussion at the UN.
This is the reality today.
The U.S. has made mockery of the DPRK's true heart and sincere efforts to realize the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner through dialogue and negotiations. Yet the U.S. is now asserting that it will not punish the DPRK once it come out for the six-party talks but punish it if it fails to do so. This is sheer sophism which can never be justified.
Only the strong can defend justice in the world today where the jungle law prevails.
Neither the UN nor anyone else can protect us.
The past history and the present reality show that only a country with its powerful force can defend the national dignity and its sovereignty and independence.
It is a day-dream to calculate that our principle will alter due to the change of the world.
We have already clarified that we will have no option but to take stronger physical actions should someone take issue with our army's training of missile launches for self-defence and put pressure on it.
The Foreign Ministry of the DPRK is authorized to clarify as follows in view of the grave situation prevailing on the peninsula:
First, our Republic vehemently denounces and roundly refutes the UNSC "resolution", a product of the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK, and will not be bound to it in the least.
Second, our Republic will bolster its war deterrent for self-defence in every way by all means and methods now that the situation has reached the worst phase due to the extremely hostile act of the U.S.
We will firmly defend our own way the ideology and system chosen by our people, true to the Songun policy, a treasured sword.

---

Now that is objective reporting. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunobelinus

As the north koreans seem so in accurate with hitting there targets apparently what are the chance that they may hit another country with out meaning to then what ? if they hit japan the americans will probably help japan and that also means i expect england will join with them

---

Why Britain? What's this got to do with us? Why always us? Why not ask those great American allies the Israelis to provide some cannon fodder for once, instead of gobbling up US taxmoney while providing absolutely nothing in return as is usually the case?

Also, if the North Koreans fire a missile and hit Japan, I don't suppose the Chinese and South Koreans would care. The Japanese were very naughty in those countries in WW2, and memories haven't faded.

Quote:

---

2 .Also if there was a war between north korea and one of its neighbours who would join with them is there anyone or are they on there own

---

Depends on how the war starts. If North Korea starts it by attacking the south, no-one will stand for them. If the US starts it, expect the Chinese to demand a cessation, the Japanese to make tut tut noises while not doing anything active, and the South Koreans to demand the Americans leave Korea forever more. If the US starts the war, I certainly can't see them getting significant support from anywhere, not even from their faithful vassal the British.

Apart from those two scenarios, neither the Japanese nor the South Koreans are inclined to start a war, while the Chinese are far too savvy to fight a war where other means are possible.

If america goes to war we will stand with them we always seem to as blair and bush seem so inclined to do what eachother do .Also if u read on the bbc it says that japan and america are actually quite close trading partners and george bush i expect would seize the chance to have a reason to try and destroy north korea if he had the chance because he said that north korea is a threat .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunobelinus

If america goes to war we will stand with them we always seem to as blair and bush seem so inclined to do what eachother do .

---

Blair does what Bush wants him to do. Bush does not do what Blair wants him to do. The shoulder-to-shoulder feeling is not mutual. Britain should not be obliged to follow whatever the US does. I should expect a British PM (and Blair's going soon) to serve British interests, not American. Launching a pre-emptive war into North Korea is not in our interests. It's even less in our interests than a pre-emptive war into Iraq.

Quote:

---

Also if u read on the bbc it says that japan and america are actually quite close trading partners and george bush i expect would seize the chance to have a reason to try and destroy north korea if he had the chance because he said that north korea is a threat .

---

Where would American troops build up? If the South Koreans suspected the Americans were preparing for an attack on North Korea, they would order the Americans off their land immediately. In Japan for an amphibious attack on North Korea? Even if the Japanese government got past their own pacifistic population (unlikely), the Chinese and South Koreans would combine to tell the Japanese to mind their own business on pain of sanctions from the mainland or worse.

The Chinese and South Koreans are fairly comfortable with the status quo, buying off the North Koreans every once in a while. It's little different from paying off the steppe raiders, they're used to it. The South Koreans have the added incentive of seeing the North as close relatives, rough and unruly but kin ready to be brought back into the family given time and patience. The Japanese? They lost their moral authority in WW2. They have the right to defend themselves. But they can expect the rest of Asia to unite against them should they seek to project their military overseas, not least by closing their markets to Japanese goods. The Chinese have been touring extensively in recent years, and they of all people would know the power of diplomacy when done correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Where would American troops build up? If the South Koreans suspected the Americans were preparing for an attack on North Korea, they would order the Americans off their land immediately. In Japan for an amphibious attack on North Korea? Even if the Japanese government got past their own pacifistic population (unlikely), the Chinese and South Koreans would combine to tell the Japanese to mind their own business on pain of sanctions from the mainland or worse.

---

Last I heard the government of South Korea was not to happy with the proposed withdraw of American Forces from their land. Your statement seems to be a contradiction to what the South Korean government would want. Besided that your statement does not take into consideration that if the United States felt it necessary to build up forces in South Korea again - that the South Korean government would have been asking for that same built up before the United States even began.

Assuming that the United States would conduct a pre-emptive strike against North Korea that involves ground forces without the assistance of South Korea is a faultly assumption. The United States would have to conduct a general mobilization of all our forces to bring about the necessary force ratio to even think about a ground invasion. Remember North Korea has about a little more then 1 million men in its armed forces. About 500,000 are estimated to be in hard defensive postions along the DMZ. A relative combat power of 3:1 is the minimum amount to have a chance at a successful offensive operation. Now for such a scenerio to happen as you paint in your single sentence - that would require the United States to send over all of our active duty and National Guard Divisions, that is a little over 20 divisions of troops. That much movement kinds of ruins a pre-emptive attack only by the United States now doesn't?

Using Air strikes against certain locations in North Korea is a possiblity if the United States sent most of its carrier fleet to the area, and was willing to loose a significant portion of its available air combat power. Your scenerio is not taking into consideration the in depth air defensive capablity of North Korea. To suppress air defense forces in depth requires not only combat aircraft suited for that role - but enough artillery and missiles units on the ground to help suppress the air defense sites. That again requires a movement of troops and equipment into South Korea.

IN short assuming a pre-emptive ground invasion or ground support assisted air strike that does not have the express concurrence by the South Korean goverment is a faulty assumption. Assuming that South Korea does not want additional American combat power in their nation also is a faulty assumption considering the fact that South Korea was not happy with the last round of troop withdraws. The amount that they would be willing to accept before they became concerned about the intentions of the United States would be a different matter.

Now Japan is a little more concerned about the possiblity of North Korea having nuclear weapons then your statement would indiciate. Neither will South Korea attempt to tell Japan to mind their own business and threaten economic sanctions. A quick review of the Japanese economy and its major trading partners would confirm or deny your opinion. And then your leaving an important piece out - if the United States decided to use Japan as a base of operations against North Korea - what could China and South Korea do about it - if the United States was willing to pay the economic price for Japan?

Now China might do so - and it might have the military muscle to threaten Japan into complaince. But that again leads one to having to make certain assumptions that fly in the face of the current reality. China no more wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons then the rest of world.

Quote:

---

The Chinese and South Koreans are fairly comfortable with the status quo, buying off the North Koreans every once in a while. It's little different from paying off the steppe raiders, they're used to it. The South Koreans have the added incentive of seeing the North as close relatives, rough and unruly but kin ready to be brought back into the family given time and patience.

---

Correct for the most part - but your forgetting one thing. South Korea wants an unified Korea as badly as North Korea, the difference is that South Korea is pursueing that aim by economic means versus military means. Up until about 1975-1980 South Korea was more then willing to use military means to bring about an unified Korea - but the institution of democracy has taken hold and they wish for a more peaceful and less destructive means to bring about that re-unification.

Quote:

---

The Japanese? They lost their moral authority in WW2. They have the right to defend themselves. But they can expect the rest of Asia to unite against them should they seek to project their military overseas, not least by closing their markets to Japanese goods. The Chinese have been touring extensively in recent years, and they of all people would know the power of diplomacy when done correctly.

---

The moral authority of WW2 does not matter in this situation. Japan can and has projected its military overseas - Japan has sent troops to Iraq, and no reprecussions happened economically from the majority of the asian nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Last I heard the government of South Korea was not to happy with the proposed withdraw of American Forces from their land. Your statement seems to be a contradiction to what the South Korean government would want. Besided that your statement does not take into consideration that if the United States felt it necessary to build up forces in South Korea again - that the South Korean government would have been asking for that same built up before the United States even began.

---

Cunobelinus was talking about a Bush attack on North Korea. How would the South Korean government feel about that? They were jumpy enough at the aggressive rhetoric during his infamous tour of 2001.

Quote:

---

Assuming that the United States would conduct a pre-emptive strike against North Korea that involves ground forces without the assistance of South Korea is a faultly assumption.

---

Under what circumstances would the South Koreans support an attack on North Korea without first having been attacked by North Korea?

Quote:

---

The United States would have to conduct a general mobilization of all our forces to bring about the necessary force ratio to even think about a ground invasion. Remember North Korea has about a little more then 1 million men in its armed forces. About 500,000 are estimated to be in hard defensive postions along the DMZ. A relative combat power of 3:1 is the minimum amount to have a chance at a successful offensive operation. Now for such a scenerio to happen as you paint in your single sentence - that would require the United States to send over all of our active duty and National Guard Divisions, that is a little over 20 divisions of troops. That much movement kinds of ruins a pre-emptive attack only by the United States now doesn't?

---

A pre-emptive strike is one which pre-empts an imminent enemy attack. Most people would see the Israeli operation in the six day war as the classic example of a pre-emptive strike. For Bush and his followers, since they are always in the right and would never attack anyone without reason, any attack they launch must by definition be pre-emptive. Thus Iraq was a pre-emptive attack, even though there was plenty of opportunity to build up invasion forces, and there was no real possibility of Iraq attacking anyone.

Thus the building up of huge invasion forces in full view of the world does not disqualify a pre-emptive attack in neocon eyes.

Quote:

---

Using Air strikes against certain locations in North Korea is a possiblity if the United States sent most of its carrier fleet to the area, and was willing to loose a significant portion of its available air combat power. Your scenerio is not taking into consideration the in depth air defensive capablity of North Korea. To suppress air defense forces in depth requires not only combat aircraft suited for that role - but enough artillery and missiles units on the ground to help suppress the air defense sites. That again requires a movement of troops and equipment into South Korea.

IN short assuming a pre-emptive ground invasion or ground support assisted air strike that does not have the express concurrence by the South Korean goverment is a faulty assumption. Assuming that South Korea does not want additional American combat power in their nation also is a faulty assumption considering the fact that South Korea was not happy with the last round of troop withdraws. The amount that they would be willing to accept before they became concerned about the intentions of the United States would be a different matter.

---

Before going on about the details of troop deployments and so on, ask the question, would the South Korean government be happy with an unprovoked US attack on North Korea, as suggested? Before war ever gets to the level of moving armies, it first has to get past the question of what it is about. People are talking about attacking this country and that as if in a game of TW, but RL governments are a little more apprehensive about starting wars, or at least they should be, and other RL governments are less willing to have invading troops cross their borders, even if their own country isn't the one being invaded.

Quote:

---

Now Japan is a little more concerned about the possiblity of North Korea having nuclear weapons then your statement would indiciate.

---

Sufficiently concerned to commit Japanese forces overseas in the face of opposition from other Asian countries?

Quote:

---

Neither will South Korea attempt to tell Japan to mind their own business and threaten economic sanctions. A quick review of the Japanese economy and its major trading partners would confirm or deny your opinion.

---

The Chinese could flex their diplomatic muscle, point to the Japanese bogeyman, and call for a united front against another Japanese co-prosperity sphere, or at least until Tokyo regains its senses. That plays on existing fears and does not require much movement of attitudes. It is also reversible, and hence more easily adoptable by wavering countries.

Quote:

---

And then your leaving an important piece out - if the United States decided to use Japan as a base of operations against North Korea - what could China and South Korea do about it - if the United States was willing to pay the economic price for Japan?

---

The US is able to compensate Japan for the loss of its Asian markets? Note that Europe won't be too happy with an unprovoked attack on North Korea either.

Quote:

---

Now China might do so - and it might have the military muscle to threaten Japan into complaince. But that again leads one to having to make certain assumptions that fly in the face of the current reality. China no more wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons then the rest of world.

---

Are they worried enough to accept a US attack on North Korea without North Korea having yet posed a realistic threat? China doesn't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons. China doesn't want North Korea to threaten other countries. China wants to forget North Korea, a former useful ally but now an embarrassment. But China is not yet so worried about North Korea that they will tolerate a foreign attack on mainland soil, least of all with Japanese involvement.

Quote:

---

Correct for the most part - but your forgetting one thing. South Korea wants an unified Korea as badly as North Korea, the difference is that South Korea is pursueing that aim by economic means versus military means. Up until about 1975-1980 South Korea was more then willing to use military means to bring about an unified Korea - but the institution of democracy has taken hold and they wish for a more peaceful and less destructive means to bring about that re-unification.

---

And they have been pretty enthusiastic about the effect that this economic reunification has had. They were disturbed by Bush's effects on their Sunshine Policy on his 2001 tour. Imagine what they would think if Bush actually turns his threats into action, as suggested in this thread.

Quote:

---

The moral authority of WW2 does not matter in this situation. Japan can and has projected its military overseas - Japan has sent troops to Iraq, and no reprecussions happened economically from the majority of the asian nations.

---

1. The Japanese made a point of peacekeeping using the yen, not the gun.
2. Iraq did not see Japanese action in WW2.

Let's see if Japanese troops would be welcomed the next time there is trouble in East Timor, or other places formerly in the co-prosperity sphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Cunobelinus was talking about a Bush attack on North Korea. How would the South Korean government feel about that? They were jumpy enough at the aggressive rhetoric during his infamous tour of 2001.

---

You will have to ask the South Korean Government.

Quote:

---

Under what circumstances would the South Koreans support an attack on North Korea without first having been attacked by North Korea?

---

I would image you can answer that one yourself. But I will give you a hint, South Korea is technically still at war with North Korea, it has not signed the United Nations brokered Ceasefire either.

Now if a nation believed that a neighboring nation that it is still technically at war with was preparing for an attack - it might decide to pre-empt such an attack to stall and delay the ability of the enemy from attacking.

A pre-emptive strike can be one which pre-empts an imminent enemy attack.

Quote:

---

Most people would see the Israeli operation in the six day war as the classic example of a pre-emptive strike. For Bush and his followers, since they are always in the right and would never attack anyone without reason, any attack they launch must by definition be pre-emptive. Thus Iraq was a pre-emptive attack, even though there was plenty of opportunity to build up invasion forces, and there was no real possibility of Iraq attacking anyone.

---

The Israeli operations in the six day war is an examble of a pre-emptive strike. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is another examble of a pre-emptive strike. And then the resumption of hostilies with Iraq could be seen as another form of a pre-emptive attack.

Quote:

---

Thus the building up of huge invasion forces in full view of the world does not disqualify a pre-emptive attack in neocon eyes.

---

I don't use the neocon definition of pre-emptive attack - thus the point your attempting here is mote. A buildup of forces in an area ruins one of the main requirements for a pre-emptive strike. That being of surprise. Now if North Korea attacked while the United States is building forces in South Korea that would be a classic examble of a pre-emptive strike.

Quote:

---

Before going on about the details of troop deployments and so on, ask the question, would the South Korean government be happy with an unprovoked US attack on North Korea, as suggested?

---

Your putting the cart before the horse. One can not manage an unprovoked attack on North Korea without first having the troops and equipment in place. Without the resources being present the ability is non-existant.

Quote:

---

Before war ever gets to the level of moving armies, it first has to get past the question of what it is about. People are talking about attacking this country and that as if in a game of TW, but RL governments are a little more apprehensive about starting wars, or at least they should be, and other RL governments are less willing to have invading troops cross their borders, even if their own country isn't the one being invaded.

---

Bingo you have the answer. Now ask yourself this question before assuming any attack on North Korea is going to happen. Have you seen any troop or equipment movements by the United States to South Korea?

Quote:

---

Sufficiently concerned to commit Japanese forces overseas in the face of opposition from other Asian countries?

---

That was not your initial statement. You might want to look into what Japan's reaction to the missile test is. I suspect there are some talks ongoing with the United States to purchase more missile defense weapon systems as we type here in our safe little world of the internet.

Quote:

---

The Chinese could flex their diplomatic muscle, point to the Japanese bogeyman, and call for a united front against another Japanese co-prosperity sphere, or at least until Tokyo regains its senses. That plays on existing fears and does not require much movement of attitudes. It is also reversible, and hence more easily adoptable by wavering countries.

---

That is ancient history. Japan has done a good job of deflating that image across the Pacific Rim.

Quote:

---

The US is able to compensate Japan for the loss of its Asian markets? Note that Europe won't be too happy with an unprovoked attack on North Korea either.

---

Are you attempting to counter a question with another question? Look at the initial part of the quote again, it makes a pretty clear assumption that has to take place. If that assumption is not feasible then the operation is not feasible. That is how military planning works, base assumptions that must be meet before the operation can continue. Once you answer the question you have your answer.

Quote:

---

Are they worried enough to accept a US attack on North Korea without North Korea having yet posed a realistic threat? China doesn't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons. China doesn't want North Korea to threaten other countries. China wants to forget North Korea, a former useful ally but now an embarrassment. But China is not yet so worried about North Korea that they will tolerate a foreign attack on mainland soil, least of all with Japanese involvement.

---

A weak counter to my retort. The answer lies within the Chinese government, neither one of us have the answer to that. However look to see what the Chinese are advocating within the scope of economic sanctions against North Korea, the answer lies within the sphere of that data.

Given that the Chinese are taking with the Japanese concering the issue - your data is slightly off. China understands that any Japanese involvement in a strike on North Korea will be done with the United States. Japan is no longer the boggyman to the Chinese government that you are attempting to paint here. Now China will use that boogyman to get support from certain nations - but what nations will be influenced and what effect they will have is questionable. All China can do is use the past Japanese boogyman to drum up more peasants from China to fill up the ranks.

Quote:

---

And they have been pretty enthusiastic about the effect that this economic reunification has had. They were disturbed by Bush's effects on their Sunshine Policy on his 2001 tour. Imagine what they would think if Bush actually turns his threats into action, as suggested in this thread.

---

Again that does not provide a counter to my statement.

For any strike into North Korea to happen requires certain conditions to have been meant on the ground in South Korea. South Korea wants more troops and equipment present in thier country because it ensures them that we are committed to their defense. Those who think that a strike is an actuallity need to go back and read through the counters provide about why such an action is not feasible without South Korean support.

Quote:

---

1. The Japanese made a point of peacekeeping using the yen, not the gun.
2. Iraq did not see Japanese action in WW2.

---

Again not an adequate retort to my statement. The deployment of troops to Iraq demonstrates that the world is not overly concerned about Japanese troop operations outside of Japan which was your orginial statement.

Quote:

---

Let's see if Japanese troops would be welcomed the next time there is trouble in East Timor, or other places formerly in the co-prosperity sphere.

---

Japanes aid has been welcomed in that area - if the troops are there to support peace operations - you might just find yourself surprised. People are often willing to forgive the past if the present is providing them needed aid.

I don't actually think that N. Korea is worth it to be honest. I was under the impression that its population is almost entirely on the point of starvation, that its economy is, and has been for some time, on the point of utter collapse, and that its leader actually believes the Terminator is real and is currently the governor of California.

The thing is no one is really willing to hit N. Korea because they have nukes, which means that in nine out of ten cases any war with them will end up with Seoul becoming a glass tomb to millions of people, which is a price too high for any sane leader to even contemplate. That’s the simple fact, in today’s world of mass media the blame would shift to the leaders who began the conflict, in a democratic nation at any rate, and they would be out of office faster that you can blink. Hence morality and self-interest dictate that no one is willing to tangle with N. Korea.

The only viable situation in which I can see a war with N. Korea ever being acceptable to any leader is if N. Korea strikes first, in which case Seoul would more than likely already be a hole in the ground and pretty much everyone would dump so much military strength on N. Korea so quickly that the country would be gone in weeks if not days. In any event the cost in human lives (Not: I'm mainly referring to civilian casualties) would be so high that it would be a hollow victory at best.

The missile tests are as has been said sabre-rattling from a country that’s two steps away from collapse at the best of times and relies from hand-outs from its old ally. And much as I would like to be able to get rid of all dictatorships getting rid of this one if done by military means is something that would be a tragedy in terms of human loss on a scale not seen since WW2. With any luck the economic and diplomatic forces currently in action in the region will achieve eventually what I hope like hell will never come about by military means.

Redleg, we seem to be talking about different visions of a US attack on North Korea. Read Cunobelinus' posts #62 and #65 to see what I was replying to, and the scenario I was answering. You're talking about a situation where there is reason to believe that NK will attack, and therefore the US attack will be a spoiling one, what I understand to be the international definition of pre-emption. What Cunobelinus was talking about was a situation where GW Bush thinks NK needs attacking, and does so, which would be the neocon definition of pre-emption.

If the attack on NK meets the general definition of pre-emption, it is legally a defensive war, no-one will support the North Koreans and everyone will support the Americans. If the attack meets the neocon definition but no-one else's, who will support the Americans? I'm assuming that no-one will actively support the North Koreans in either scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Redleg, we seem to be talking about different visions of a US attack on North Korea. Read Cunobelinus' posts #62 and #65 to see what I was replying to, and the scenario I was answering.

---

Red them and your making an assumption about my reply that was not present. I wasn't talking about different versions of an attack - I was clearly stating why an attack will not take place until certain conditions are meet.

Quote:

---

You're talking about a situation where there is reason to believe that NK will attack, and therefore the US attack will be a spoiling one, what I understand to be the international definition of pre-emption.

---

Wrong assumption again. I am demonstrating why both of you are incorrect in your assumptions about what could happen. There are certain military conditions that must be meant before any type of attack can be conducted, most military planners place assumptions in their planning process that will enable the mission to take place. If the United States can not meet those base assumptions then an attack is not feasible. I am using some very basic assumptions - the reality of the plan is actually very complex - you can catch a unclassified version of the warplan 50-27 at globalsecurity.org to get a better understand.

Neither of you have demonstrated the necessary conditions for a viable attack to happen regardless if its a classic pre-emptive strike or the situation that you are attempting to worse case, an aggressive move to remove the nuclear threat of North Korea.

Quote:

---

What Cunobelinus was talking about was a situation where GW Bush thinks NK needs attacking, and does so, which would be the neocon definition of pre-emption.

---

And hince I entered the discussion to point out where both of you are making faulty arguements. The United States does not have the assets available to conduct such a raid on North Korea to destroy its Nuclear Sites, nor is the death star available to conduct such a mission. Your stuck on thinking of a situation that can not occur until certain conditions are present.

The tactic you are atributing to the neocons is unfortunately much older then them. It just been revamp by them for today.

Quote:

---

If the attack on NK meets the general definition of pre-emption, it is legally a defensive war, no-one will support the North Koreans and everyone will support the Americans. If the attack meets the neocon definition but no-one else's, who will support the Americans? I'm assuming that no-one will actively support the North Koreans in either scenario.

---

There will not be an attack on North Korea without South Korean support.

To conduct the envisioned neocon type pre-emptive strike requires assets to be on the ground to provide ground support to an air attack deep into North Korea to destroy Nuclear Sites. North Korea is far from defenseless with an outdated airforce - and a dated but still execellent airdefense system.

The United States does not have the assets to conduct such an operation that both of you are imaging, nor will it currently be willing to risk the assets to conduct a solo air raid into North Korea. You are attempting to paint a scenerio that does not exist in reality. Is the United States going to crap abunch of planes and pilots to replace the ones that will be lost conducting a strike into North Korea? I wonder if you understand the type of coverage that North Korea maintains with its air defense system? Have you heard about the Wire strung between Mountain Tops to prevent low flying helicopters and planes from coming flying map of the earth to aviod anti-aircraft radar? I am also willing to bet you think the neocons are basically idiots that have no ability to listen to military planners, and that military planners will allow thier forces to go on sucide missions that have limited possiblities of success?

If the real world actions concerning North Korea doesn't show you that a strike on North Korea will not happen until North Korea makes an aggressive move - such as a missile strike on Japan or South Korea or actually launches a ground attack south into Souel - then you have been fully taken in by the propaganda of the conspricacy theorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Red them and your making an assumption about my reply that was not present. I wasn't talking about different versions of an attack - I was clearly stating why an attack will not take place until certain conditions are meet.

If the real world actions concerning North Korea doesn't show you that a strike on North Korea will not happen until North Korea makes an aggressive move - such as a missile strike on Japan or South Korea or actually launches a ground attack south into Souel - then you have been fully taken in by the propaganda of the conspricacy theorists.

---

Perhaps I overestimate the capabilities of the US military. As sceptical as I am about their abilities in irregular conflicts, I have been assuming that they can work near-miracles in conventional wars. IE. If the US wishes to launch an amphibious invasion of NK via Japan and bypassing SK, it can, given the will and some time to prepare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Perhaps I overestimate the capabilities of the US military. As sceptical as I am about their abilities in irregular conflicts, I have been assuming that they can work near-miracles in conventional wars. IE. If the US wishes to launch an amphibious invasion of NK via Japan and bypassing SK, it can, given the will and some time to prepare.

---

A seaborne invasion without the support of South Korea would be extremely difficult to pull off. I personally don't think the United States has the resources to invade by sea in the way that would enable the operation to be successful. With 1.5 million men under arms in North Korea, one would have to fight a war of attrition of not only men but material. The United States could win based purely upon material and resources availiable - but the manpower requirement will exceed the ingrained will to fight on foriegn soil amount that the American people would accept.

To put a complex situation in a simple statement, One of the reasons for nuclear weapons on Japan at the end of WW2 was the belief that the causality rate would be to much for the American People to accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Let's see if Japanese troops would be welcomed the next time there is trouble in East Timor, or other places formerly in the co-prosperity sphere.

---

Not including engineers like the ones in Iraq right?

The ones that were previously deployed in East Timor in 2002 right?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ADDITIONAL JAPANESE PKF ARRIVE; SHIP DUE THIS WEEK

More than 300 Japanese peacekeepers arrived in Dili over the weekend, joining 67 members of the Japanese Engineering Group (JEG) already in the territory. An additional 47 soldiers and two shipments of vehicles and equipment are due to arrive this week.

The 303 engineers and support troops flew into Comoro Airport on Saturday and Sunday aboard commercial aircraft. They represent the largest group of a 690-soldier Japanese Ground Self Defence Force Engineering Group, which is arriving in stages to replace departing Pakistan and Bangladesh engineers as part of the ongoing downsizing of the UN Peacekeeping Force.

A Japanese military cargo vessel, the Ohsumi, will arrive off the coast of East Timor tomorrow, 26 March, to unload vehicles, construction equipment and 47 additional peacekeepers in Suai, Dili and the Oecussi enclave over the next two weeks.

Special hovercraft will be deployed from the ship to transport the troops and equipment to shore. The Suai landing is scheduled to take place this week, Dili on 5 April and Oecussi on 9 April.

The same Japanese peacekeepers who were engineers who were publically thanked by the East Timor President in 2004 right?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Gusmao thanks Japan's peacekeepers to East Timor
Asian Political News, March 1, 2004
TOKYO, Feb. 25 Kyodo

East Timor President Xanana Gusmao on Wednesday thanked Japan for taking part in the U.N. peacekeeping operations (PKO) in his country, saying the Japanese noncombat troops are working well together with local people, Defense Agency officials said.

Gusmao conveyed his gratitude to Defense Agency Director General Shigeru Ishiba during their meeting at the agency office in Tokyo.

The officials quoted Ishiba as saying that the United Nations has also praised the Self-Defense Forces, which is a source of great source of pride and encouragement to them.

According to the officials, Ishiba also indicated that the government will continue to cooperate in nation-building efforts in East Timor.

Well then there is the diplomatic and political messages being sent via proper communication channels and yes even the Media.

http://www.korea.net/News/News/NewsV...19032&part=102

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Selected Text from link

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said Wednesday (July 19) that North Korea's recent missile tests were wrong and could obstruct peace on the Korean Peninsula and trigger a regional arms race, according to his top security secretary.

---

Now I found this one interesting - especially after the current tract of discussion

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...83&ft=1&f=1004

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Selected Text

China is urging Pyongyang to return to multilateral talks on its nuclear programs and resume a moratorium on missile tests. But at a press briefing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu warned against pinning all expectations on Beijing.

South Korean diplomacy hasn't fared much better. In Seoul today, North Korean officials walked out of cabinet-level talks with the South and refused its requests to discuss the missile

---

Then breaking news - (looks like my thought was correct)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060720/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Initial Paragraph

The United States will start deploying missile interceptors at a key air force base in Japan from this summer, as part of efforts with Tokyo to deal with the threat of North Korea's missile arsenal, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said on Thursday.

---

shorly if there was a war aganced North Korea, and the US wanted to invade wodent the best method be to some how get china involved otherwise it could be very costley for the US and its allies shorly?