PDA

View Full Version : North Korea Appears Set to Launch Missile


banyon
06-18-2006, 05:40 PM
North Korea Appears Set to Launch Missile
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save

By HELENE COOPER
Published: June 18, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 18 — North Korea appears to have completed fueling of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States, American officials said today, a move that greatly increases the probability that Pyongyang will actually go ahead with a launch.

After analyzing satellite images, American officials said they believed that booster rockets were loaded onto a launch pad and fuel tanks fitted to a missile at a site in North Korea's remote east coast. Fueling a missile is generally considered close to an irreversible step, since it is very hard to siphon fuel back out.

The fueling set off a flurry of diplomatic activity over the weekend, as officials from the United States, Japan and China worked furiously to try to forestall a launch. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to her Japanese and Chinese counterparts, urging the Chinese, in particular, to try to pressure North Korea against firing its Taepodong 2 missile.

Demonstrating how seriously they consider this matter, officials at the State Department telephoned North Korean diplomats at that country's permanent mission to the United Nations in New York, warning them directly against going ahead with a launch.

Such direct contact is highly unusual, since American officials limit their direct talks with their North Korean counterparts. But "we needed to make sure there was no misunderstanding," one senior Bush administration official said today. .

In Japan, Foreign Minister Taro Aso warned that a miscalculation could result in the missile landing on Japanese territory. "If it is dropped on Japan, it will complicate the story," he told Japanese television today. "It will be regarded as an attack."

Mr. Aso later toned down his language, saying, "we will not right away view it as a military act," but he said Japan would seek an immediate meeting of the Security Council if Pyongyang goes ahead with the missile launch.

A test of the long-range missile by North Korea would be the first since 1998, when it fired a three-stage Taepodong 1 missile over Japan, catching American intelligence officials by surprise. That led Congress to step up its push for deployment of anti-missile defenses.

A year later, in 1999, North Korea agreed to a moratorium on long-range missile testing and has not fired one since.

But five weeks ago, American officials received satellite images that showed North Korea preparing to test a multiple-stage Taepodong 2 missile. Some Bush administration officials at first suspected that the moves were a grab for attention while Washington's focus was primarily on Iran and a way to press the United States to agree to direct talks. But since then, diplomats on both sides of the Pacific have become increasingly concerned that North Korea does indeed plan to go ahead with a launch.

"Why they are doing this? You will have to ask them," one senior Bush administration official said today. "It is not in anyone's interest; certainly not theirs. For our part, we will not be derailed by their temper tantrums nor have any of our own."

The officials would not be more specific about the information they have received, and most would discuss the matter only after being promised anonymity, saying the sensitive diplomatic and intelligence concerns meant they could not speak for the record.

American knowledge about the Taepodong 2 is limited. The system has never been flight-tested. American intelligence has steadily increased the estimates of its range. In 2001, a National Intelligence Estimate forecast that a three-stage version of the Taepodong 2 missile could reach all of North America with a sizable payload.

The Taepodong 2 is believed to have three stages. The first is thought to be a cluster of North Korea's No Dong missiles; the second stage is believed to be a No Dong missile, and the third stage might be a solid-fueled system, according to experts who have studied what a Taepodong might look like.

A test of the missile would ignite a political chain reaction in Japan, the United States and China. The Bush administration might step up financing for missile defense efforts. Japan might increase its missile defense efforts as well, while hard-liners there might even push to reconsider the nation's nuclear weapons options. Both moves would alienate China.

In North Korea, Pyongyang reportedly told its citizens to raise the national flag at 2 p.m. local time today (1 a.m. Eastern time) and prepare for an announcement on television, a Japanese newspaper said, igniting rumors that a missile test was imminent. But that time came and passed without incident, and American officials say they believe the report was unrelated to a missile test.

North Korea is a secretive Stalinist state and figuring out the motives of its leader, Kim Jong Il, has stymied diplomats for years. But experts say there are two main reasons why the North Korean regime might launch a missile right now.

For one thing, the country's military may well want to verify their missile capability. It has almost eight years since the last missile launch, which occurred in August 1998, and "it may well be that Kim Jong Il is getting a lot of pressure from his generals to verify the design" of the Taepodong 2 missile, said Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation under President Bill Clinton.

But, he added, "whenever the North Koreans act up, one has to assume in part at least that they are trying to get the world's attention."

Just two weeks ago — a day after the United States offered to hold direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program — North Korea invited Christopher R. Hill, an assistant secretary of state and chief negotiator on the North's nuclear weapons program, for direct talks in Pyongyang. That offer was immediately rebuffed by the White House, which insisted that the North return to the long-deadlocked six-nation talks instead. The other nations involved in the talks are China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

North Korea has boycotted the talks in recent months after the United States cracked down on financial institutions, including a bank in Macau, that dealt with the government in Pyongyang and with North Korean companies suspected of counterfeiting American dollars and laundering money. If North Korea goes ahead with a missile launching, the already floundering talks would likely go into a deep freeze.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/world/asia/18cnd-korea.html?ex=1308283200&en=d79cc9c3f962eae3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Bowser
06-18-2006, 08:07 PM
"**** you, Hans Brix! I'm busy!"

Bowser
06-18-2006, 08:15 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_missile

JBucc
06-18-2006, 08:24 PM
We should have one of our Korean double agent Superspy's put a mine on it that will make it blow up right before it launches. That'll show those commie punks.

patteeu
06-18-2006, 08:46 PM
We should have one of our Korean double agent Superspy's put a mine on it that will make it blow up right before it launches. That'll show those commie punks.

The absolute best scenario, short of forcing a regime change and ushering in a new leader who disarms NK, would be for us to successfully intercept their test missile. Of course, we probably aren't capable of doing that yet and a failure would be most embarassing, but if we could do it it would earn us many awe points on the global stage.

Donger
06-18-2006, 09:03 PM
Of course, we probably aren't capable of doing that yet

Rumor has it, we're a lot closer than you'd think. If we can see the boost phase and have assets in place, apparently the software geeks have made some rather significant progress.

patteeu
06-18-2006, 09:16 PM
Rumor has it, we're a lot closer than you'd think. If we can see the boost phase and have assets in place, apparently the software geeks have made some rather significant progress.

I hope those rumors are right. That would be fantabulous.

Donger
06-18-2006, 09:20 PM
I hope those rumors are right. That would be fantabulous.

I must admit, It'd be pretty f*cking funny.

"Ha! We launch ICBMs at you!!"

SWAT, SWAT, SWAT!

"You don't have one of these, do you?"

banyon
06-19-2006, 07:53 AM
This news doesn't bother anyone?

As in what in the F*** has Bush been doing for the last 6 years about this?

As to the ABM's, we've been pouring billions into shooting a bullet with a bullet for years. I certainly don't hold out hope that all of a sudden we got it right.

Radar Chief
06-19-2006, 08:27 AM
This news doesn't bother anyone?

As in what in the F*** has Bush been doing for the last 6 years about this?

As to the ABM's, we've been pouring billions into shooting a bullet with a bullet for years. I certainly don't hold out hope that all of a sudden we got it right.


I always get a chuckle from people that want to portray the whole “shoot’n a bullet with a bullet” as such an insurmountable task that it couldn’t have possibly been accurately tested in the ‘70’s with a missile system originally developed in the ‘50’s.

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/hawk/hawk_06_corp_intcpt.jpg

Also, just FYI, but this huge honk’n laser, attached, successfully shot down an inbound test missile several years ago. Smaller versions have since shot down projectiles as small as artillery shells.

Austin Chief has loads of information on this, as if he might be one of the project engineers. :hmmm:

Radar Chief
06-19-2006, 08:52 AM
I must admit, It'd be pretty f*cking funny.

"Ha! We launch ICBMs at you!!"

SWAT, SWAT, SWAT!

"You don't have one of these, do you?"

It would be hilarious to blast one of’is bottle rockets right out’a the sky, but do we wanna drop that trump card just yet?

Cochise
06-19-2006, 09:21 AM
I always get a chuckle from people that want to portray the whole “shoot’n a bullet with a bullet” as such an insurmountable task that it couldn’t have possibly been accurately tested in the ‘70’s with a missile system originally developed in the ‘50’s.


Isn't there always some reason why a new project shouldn't be funded? It's star wars, it's too expensive, it'll never work, we don't need an upgraded system, blah blah.

Logical
06-19-2006, 09:35 AM
So does anyone else wonder what our brilliant folks in the administration will do about this, maybe we will invade the Phillipines that would probably help.

banyon
06-19-2006, 09:57 AM
Isn't there always some reason why a new project shouldn't be funded? It's star wars, it's too expensive, it'll never work, we don't need an upgraded system, blah blah.

I don't know if you are referring to my post at all, but I don't want to argue that all such funding is unnecessary. My only point was that given the failures to date of these ABM programs, I certainly take the N Korean ICBM's as a serious threat that I don't think we can be assured that we currently have adequate defenses for.

Logical
06-19-2006, 10:00 AM
I don't know if you are referring to my post at all, but I don't want to argue that all such funding is unnecessary. My only point was that given the failures to date of these ABM programs, I certainly take the N Korean ICBM's as a serious threat that I don't think we can be assured that we currently have adequate defenses for.

The only thing I can do to reassure you, is state that the successes are usually classified and thus you would not hear about them. I am not saying there have been successes but just know that if there were it is very unlikely you would know about them.

Radar Chief
06-19-2006, 10:04 AM
I don't know if you are referring to my post at all, but I don't want to argue that all such funding is unnecessary. My only point was that given the failures to date of these ABM programs, I certainly take the N Korean ICBM's as a serious threat that I don't think we can be assured that we currently have adequate defenses for.

I certainly wouldn’t intend to make light of it, nukes are serious bizz no matter who has’em.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-19-2006, 10:23 AM
Anyone who has done a substantive amount of research into ABM knows that it is fool's gold. The system tests are exhaustively detailed to the point where a defensive launch could never hope to have that much information about its target already...and still their success rate is miniscule.

Regarding the Star Wars program...it would have cost trillions with a T, and would have done nothing to protect from bombs dropped via planes, backpack nukes, or SLBMs...that's why it wasn't funded.

patteeu
06-19-2006, 10:45 AM
This news doesn't bother anyone?

As in what in the F*** has Bush been doing for the last 6 years about this?

As to the ABM's, we've been pouring billions into shooting a bullet with a bullet for years. I certainly don't hold out hope that all of a sudden we got it right.

Sure it bothers some of us. It bothers me that Bill Clinton swept the problem under the rug in 1994 and left a "hot potato" (in the words of penchief) for the Bush administration. It bothers me that the left has done everything within it's power to tie this administration's hands in foreign policy by sniping at every turn and inconsistently demanding multilateralism at one point and bilateral talks at another depending on which position puts them at odds with the administration. And it bothers me that other countries don't seem adequately concerned with a nuclear NK (especially South Korea, but also China and Russia).

But to put things in perspective, I'm more bothered by those who want to cut and run in Iraq and by the potential that Bush is going to follow the same failed path that the Clinton administration used in NK now in Iran than I am with the latest NK news. I guess I've already prepared myself for the NK situation to some degree.

patteeu
06-19-2006, 10:47 AM
So does anyone else wonder what our brilliant folks in the administration will do about this, maybe we will invade the Phillipines that would probably help.

What is your recommendation?

Logical
06-19-2006, 11:41 AM
What is your recommendation?

Infililtration by special forces in cooperation with bombing runs to take out strategic targets and set back their progress.

Lzen
06-19-2006, 11:44 AM
Infililtration by special forces in cooperation with bombing runs to take out strategic targets and set back their progress.

So you want to start a war with NK?

patteeu
06-19-2006, 11:45 AM
Infililtration by special forces in cooperation with bombing runs to take out strategic targets and set back their progress.

Sounds like a plan to me. What happens if the North Koreans open up with their gazillion artillery pieces and their trillion man army on the South? Do we prepare for full scale war to handle this eventuality?

Radar Chief
06-19-2006, 12:07 PM
So you want to start a war with NK?

APBI. Any Place But Iraq. ;)

Logical
06-19-2006, 12:09 PM
So you want to start a war with NK?

Ideally it is done without that occuring, would you rather let them start the war by launching a missile that works and say taking out Seattle? Is it more logical to be doing something about NK or wasting our time occupying Iraq?

Logical
06-19-2006, 12:10 PM
APBI. Any Place But Iraq. ;)

I am not advocating a full scale invasion, have you seen anyone advocate that option? But frankly it would make more sense than occupying Iraq.

Logical
06-19-2006, 12:12 PM
Sounds like a plan to me. What happens if the North Koreans open up with their gazillion artillery pieces and their trillion man army on the South? Do we prepare for full scale war to handle this eventuality?Your hyperbole makes a response not worthy of the effort. If you have a real question feel free to ask it.

banyon
06-19-2006, 12:33 PM
I guess I've already prepared myself for the NK situation to some degree.

Did you buy a fallout shelter?

patteeu
06-19-2006, 12:59 PM
Did you buy a fallout shelter?

They can't reach me yet.

patteeu
06-19-2006, 01:14 PM
Your hyperbole makes a response not worthy of the effort. If you have a real question feel free to ask it.

I exaggerated the number of artillery pieces and soldiers in the NK military because I don't know exact figures and I didn't want anyone to correct me as if I were trying to be exact. The question remains the same: are you prepared to fight a full scale war on the Korean penninsula against NK's large number of conventional weapons and soldiers and possibly even some nuclear artillery (if we don't succeed at taking all the nukes out with your special ops raids)? North Korea isn't a lame country that has no recourse like the Serbs were or even like Saddam's conventional forces were post-GWI.

Here is a link to the North Korean ground forces order of battle (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm) in case the exact numbers matter to you. It says there were 11,200 artillery and nearly a million soldiers in 1999.

P.S. I'm not necessarily against your idea, I'm just pointing out that you can't count on using special ops and standoff weapons without risking full scale war against a relatively dangerous enemy.

chagrin
06-19-2006, 01:32 PM
If you have a real question feel free to ask it.

Yes, oh great one, I have a serious question, even though I am also antagonizing you (can't hide from that) I really would like to know the answer.

Do you really believe in your heart and mind, that you are smart and resourceful enough to run this country?

A simple yes or no, will do sir - don't bother running around this one, just let us have it.

Logical
06-19-2006, 02:24 PM
Yes, oh great one, I have a serious question, even though I am also antagonizing you (can't hide from that) I really would like to know the answer.

Do you really believe in your heart and mind, that you are smart and resourceful enough to run this country?

A simple yes or no, will do sir - don't bother running around this one, just let us have it.

I am definitely smart enough and resourceful enough to hire the right administration to do a better job than Bush has done. Now had you asked am I charismatic enough, the answer would be no.

Logical
06-19-2006, 02:27 PM
I exaggerated the number of artillery pieces and soldiers in the NK military because I don't know exact figures and I didn't want anyone to correct me as if I were trying to be exact. The question remains the same: are you prepared to fight a full scale war on the Korean penninsula against NK's large number of conventional weapons and soldiers and possibly even some nuclear artillery (if we don't succeed at taking all the nukes out with your special ops raids)? North Korea isn't a lame country that has no recourse like the Serbs were or even like Saddam's conventional forces were post-GWI.

Here is a link to the North Korean ground forces order of battle (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm) in case the exact numbers matter to you. It says there were 11,200 artillery and nearly a million soldiers in 1999.

P.S. I'm not necessarily against your idea, I'm just pointing out that you can't count on using special ops and standoff weapons without risking full scale war against a relatively dangerous enemy.

So how is N. Korea going to transport all those troops to invade the US? If we do not choose to invade NK with a full complement of troops I am not sure how it becomes a full scale war.

Radar Chief
06-19-2006, 02:30 PM
So how is N. Korea going to transport all those troops to invade the US? If we do not choose to invade NK with a full complement of troops I am not sure how it becomes a full scale war.

As long as you’re will’n to completely abandon our troops in South Korea, along with South Korea in general, it doesn’t.

Logical
06-19-2006, 02:33 PM
As long as you’re will’n to completely abandon our troops in South Korea, along with South Korea in general, it doesn’t.

You have an opinion on why we still have troops in S. Korea. Seems to me we have set them up to be slaughtered. There is no way there are sufficient numbers to defend themselves nor is the base strategic given our other bases in the region. I have always been puzzled why we are still committed to that area with troops.

patteeu
06-19-2006, 04:59 PM
So how is N. Korea going to transport all those troops to invade the US? If we do not choose to invade NK with a full complement of troops I am not sure how it becomes a full scale war.

I exaggerated the number of artillery pieces and soldiers in the NK military because I don't know exact figures and I didn't want anyone to correct me as if I were trying to be exact. The question remains the same: are you prepared to fight a full scale war on the Korean penninsula against NK's large number of conventional weapons and soldiers and possibly even some nuclear artillery (if we don't succeed at taking all the nukes out with your special ops raids)? North Korea isn't a lame country that has no recourse like the Serbs were or even like Saddam's conventional forces were post-GWI.

You know as well as I do that we have tens of thousands (37,000?) US troops in South Korea as a tripwire to insure US involvement should the North attack. You may not agree with that deployment, but that's a fact. If you aren't willing to enter a full scale war on the penninsula, you must be willing to sacrifice those US troops (approximately 15x as many as have died in Iraq so far) and let South Korea fall unless I'm missing something.

banyon
06-19-2006, 05:48 PM
You know as well as I do that we have tens of thousands (37,000?) US troops in South Korea as a tripwire to insure US involvement should the North attack. You may not agree with that deployment, but that's a fact. If you aren't willing to enter a full scale war on the penninsula, you must be willing to sacrifice those US troops (approximately 15x as many as have died in Iraq so far) and let South Korea fall unless I'm missing something.

Maybe I'm missing something. Why couldn't we withdraw those troops and strike their nuke facilities afterwards?

Logical
06-19-2006, 05:50 PM
You know as well as I do that we have tens of thousands (37,000?) US troops in South Korea as a tripwire to insure US involvement should the North attack. You may not agree with that deployment, but that's a fact. If you aren't willing to enter a full scale war on the penninsula, you must be willing to sacrifice those US troops (approximately 15x as many as have died in Iraq so far) and let South Korea fall unless I'm missing something.Actually I am willing to do something others probably would not be, use the Nuclear option against them if they invade S Korea. I tend to be extreme that way.

Logical
06-19-2006, 05:51 PM
Maybe I'm missing something. Why couldn't we withdraw those troops and strike their nuke facilities afterwards?This would be ideal

Mr. Laz
06-19-2006, 05:59 PM
did shane write this thread title?

banyon
06-19-2006, 06:03 PM
did shane write this thread title?

I don't get your joke.

If you aren't joking, It's the title of the Article from the NYT.

patteeu
06-19-2006, 06:05 PM
Maybe I'm missing something. Why couldn't we withdraw those troops and strike their nuke facilities afterwards?

What I think you are missing is that that wasn't a part of Logical's stated plan. Maybe that's what he had in mind, but that's not one of those minor details that goes without saying.

patteeu
06-19-2006, 06:08 PM
Actually I am willing to do something others probably would not be, use the Nuclear option against them if they invade S Korea. I tend to be extreme that way.

I think that's about the only way we could stop the North from overwhelming the south, but I could be wrong. In any event, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It does become a stickier international situation if we attack them first though. Not that that's a show stopper for me or anything, I'm just pointing that out.

Logical
06-19-2006, 06:14 PM
What I think you are missing is that that wasn't a part of Logical's stated plan. Maybe that's what he had in mind, but that's not one of those minor details that goes without saying.I admit it wasn't but that is why a President has advisers. To get solid feedback like that and then to act upon it.

Mr. Laz
06-19-2006, 06:28 PM
I don't get your joke.

If you aren't joking, It's the title of the Article from the NYT.

just messing around

Donger
06-19-2006, 06:34 PM
Maybe I'm missing something. Why couldn't we withdraw those troops and strike their nuke facilities afterwards?

Probably the only thing that has kept North Korea from re-invading are the American troops. IMO, if we withdraw, they invade.

Adept Havelock
06-19-2006, 06:38 PM
I think that's about the only way we could stop the North from overwhelming the south, but I could be wrong. In any event, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It does become a stickier international situation if we attack them first though. Not that that's a show stopper for me or anything, I'm just pointing that out.

FWIW Patteeu, I think you are right. NK's forces are extremly armor-heavy formations, and backed by a terrific amount of extensively hardend artillery. I think it would be a serious race to see if we could redeploy sufficient air assets to seriously degrade their logisitical ability, as those old soviet-style armored formations consume POL at an incredible rate. That, and how quickly SK could mobilize and deploy. Unfortunately, I think the NK army is about the only thing in that damn country that actually does work fairly well. With the chaos caused by their Chemical arsenal (I'm sure they'd use it against the civilians, if only for the additional strain that would create on the SK military and government. Heck, they've got quite a bit of artillery that can shell Seoul from hard sites built into Mountains near the DMZ), and our response, It'd be a hell of a mess, that's for sure.

If it stayed strictly conventional, We certainly don't have much armor in-theatre to counter the NK's, and a quick google shows about 4600 tanks in the SK inventory. No idea as to the type or age of those forces though. At the same time, I don't know the breakdown on the NK armored forces either, though I strongly suspect most of them are T-55/T-64, or Chinese variants on those models. Probably a few "elite" regiments with T-72 or T-80's. Nothing that would give an Abrams trouble, but I think we only have a couple hundred of those or so in theatre. Anybody got some solid data on this?

I've gamed the scenario a few times, but that's limited by the model (TOAOW). Seems to break about 60/40 in favor of the attacker, unless WMD's get used. Then it's over for both sides pretty quick.

banyon
06-19-2006, 06:56 PM
Probably the only thing that has kept North Korea from re-invading are the American troops. IMO, if we withdraw, they invade.

Yeah, I know that.

I'm only saying withdraw in preparation for a strike, although certainly that comes with qualifications. But if this country is being legitimately threatened with ICBM's then I don't really care so much what happens in Seoul.

Donger
06-19-2006, 06:59 PM
Yeah, I know that.

I'm only saying withdraw in preparation for a strike, although certainly that comes with qualifications. But if this country is being legitimately threatened with ICBM's then I don't really care so much what happens in Seoul.

The Soviet Union 'threatened' us with ICBMs and SLBMs for decades. We didn't invade or 'strike' them.

banyon
06-19-2006, 07:00 PM
The Soviet Union 'threatened' us with ICBMs and SLBMs for decades. We didn't invade or 'strike' them.

We didn't get a chance to knock them out before they had real capabilities either.

Adept Havelock
06-19-2006, 07:03 PM
The Soviet Union 'threatened' us with ICBMs and SLBMs for decades. We didn't invade or 'strike' them.

Damn good thing we didn't. The "Tripwire" worked in Europe from 45 till 89. It'll continue to work is SK (I hope) until NK falls apart as the Warsaw Pact did.

Deterrence, containment, and MAD. As good and effective ideas now as they were when old Harry Truman, George F. Kennan, Dean Acheson, and Gen. Marshall came up with it in the late 40's.

Donger
06-19-2006, 07:05 PM
Damn good thing we didn't. The "Tripwire" worked in Europe from 45 till 89. It'll continue to work is SK (I hope) until NK falls apart as the Warsaw Pact did.

Deterrence, containment, and MAD. As good and effective ideas now as they were when old Harry Truman, George F. Kennan, Dean Acheson, and Gen. Marshall came up with it in the late 40's.

Absolutely correct.

Adept Havelock
06-19-2006, 07:06 PM
We didn't get a chance to knock them out before they had real capabilities either.

We had the opportunity well into the 1960's, and the intelligence that told us so. Kennedy's "Missile Gap" was little more than a PR effort to light a fire under 1)Our own missile program, 2) The scientific community in general, and 3) His pet project, the space program.

Even during the Cuban Crisis, we would have been bloodied, but they would have been absolutely devastated. Our planners were targeting empty fields as "possible aircraft relocation" sites to find a target for all our weaponry, for pete's sake. Until the late 60's and early 70's, the Soviet Union had a very limited ability to threaten CONUS. Europe, now that's another story.

In 1952 the early version of the SIOP, AKA "Operation Downfall" called for the use of all of the approx. 120 bombs the US had in it's inventory. The Soviet Union had 4, and no way to effectively deliver them to the continental US. A GRU Colonel named Oleg Penkovsky told us as much. IMO Stalin was using Korea as a "Spain" exercise for WW3 (though sooner than he expected, thanks to Kim Il Runt), and would have got a very rude surprise sometime in 1954-1955 if he hadn't kicked the bucket, (or been helped along by that worm Beria, as I've suspected).

patteeu
06-19-2006, 07:13 PM
FWIW Patteeu, I think you are right. NK's forces are extremly armor-heavy formations, and backed by a terrific amount of extensively hardend artillery. I think it would be a serious race to see if we could redeploy sufficient air assets to seriously degrade their logisitical ability, as those old soviet-style armored formations consume POL at an incredible rate. That, and how quickly SK could mobilize and deploy. Unfortunately, I think the NK army is about the only thing in that damn country that actually does work fairly well. With the chaos caused by their Chemical arsenal (I'm sure they'd use it against the civilians, if only for the additional strain that would create on the SK military and government. Heck, they've got quite a bit of artillery that can shell Seoul from hard sites built into Mountains near the DMZ), and our response, It'd be a hell of a mess, that's for sure.

If it stayed strictly conventional, We certainly don't have much armor in-theatre to counter the NK's, and a quick google shows about 4600 tanks in the SK inventory. No idea as to the type or age of those forces though. At the same time, I don't know the breakdown on the NK armored forces either, though I strongly suspect most of them are T-55/T-64, or Chinese variants on those models. Probably a few "elite" regiments with T-72 or T-80's. Nothing that would give an Abrams trouble, but I think we only have a couple hundred of those or so in theatre. Anybody got some solid data on this?

I've gamed the scenario a few times, but that's limited by the model (TOAOW). Seems to break about 60/40 in favor of the attacker, unless WMD's get used. Then it's over for both sides pretty quick.

Thanks for the info. :thumb:

Logical
06-19-2006, 07:34 PM
The Soviet Union 'threatened' us with ICBMs and SLBMs for decades. We didn't invade or 'strike' them.I truly believe Kim Jong Il is a nut, not true with the Soviet Leaders.

Logical
06-19-2006, 07:36 PM
Damn good thing we didn't. The "Tripwire" worked in Europe from 45 till 89. It'll continue to work is SK (I hope) until NK falls apart as the Warsaw Pact did.

Deterrence, containment, and MAD. As good and effective ideas now as they were when old Harry Truman, George F. Kennan, Dean Acheson, and Gen. Marshall came up with it in the late 40's.Deterence and MAD depend on a presumption of a sane leader.

Adept Havelock
06-19-2006, 07:56 PM
Deterence and MAD depend on a presumption of a sane leader.

It worked with old Uncle Joe till 1953, and he was as nutty as they come. The same could possibly be said for Andropov in his last year, or certainly for the elder Kim in Korea( who had extensive chemical and biological weapon stocks).

IMO, past behavior is an pretty good indicator of future actions. While a nutjob, he has in the past behaved as a "rational actor" regarding nuclear and chemical weaponry.

Besides, he knows if he tries anything, aside from possible US actions, the Chinese will take him out, and probably try to turn N. Korea into another province of China under the guise of "liberating" it.

Logical
06-19-2006, 07:58 PM
It worked with old Uncle Joe till 1953, and he was as nutty as they come. The same could possibly be said for Andropov in his last year, or certainly for the elder Kim in Korea.

IMO, past behavior is an pretty good indicator of future actions. While a nutjob, he has in the past behaved as a "rational actor" regarding nuclear and chemical weaponry.

Besides, he knows if he tries anything, aside from possible US actions, the Chinese will take him out, and probably try to turn N. Korea into another province of China under the guise of "liberating" it.

I am not as optimistic as you.

Adept Havelock
06-19-2006, 08:00 PM
I am not as optimistic as you.

You may be the first person in years to accuse me of being an optimist. ROFL

I'm no optimist, I just don't think an ICBM or 2 justifies the risk of starting a war on the Korean penn. that could concievably destabilize the far east, should China become involved. :shrug:

Braincase
06-19-2006, 08:13 PM
I say we catch it, fix it with a proper warhead, then throw it back to them in a momentous example of good will.

WilliamTheIrish
06-19-2006, 08:16 PM
You know, I remember distinctly in 1998 the NK's promised they wouldn't do this again, after firing a test missile over the Japanese islands.

So what's the scenario if the US shoots it out of the sky?

Is that an act of war? This is a sticky situation.

banyon
06-19-2006, 08:22 PM
I'm no optimist, I just don't think an ICBM or 2 justifies the risk of starting a war on the Korean penn. that could concievably destabilize the far east, should China become involved. :shrug:

Um, yeah. They probably figure into the mix too somehow. Maybe we should've left them at the table with the multiparty talks...

Anyway this is pretty tricky stuff and unfortunately we are saddled with the most incompetent foreign policy Administration perhaps in our history to make these critical decisions.

Adept Havelock
06-19-2006, 08:32 PM
I say we catch it, fix it with a proper warhead, then throw it back to them in a momentous example of good will.

ROFL In a perfect world....

You know, I remember distinctly in 1998 the NK's promised they wouldn't do this again, after firing a test missile over the Japanese islands.

So what's the scenario if the US shoots it out of the sky?

Is that an act of war? This is a sticky situation.

As far as the moratorium, IIRC, it was self-imposed. Technically, they have the right to end it as well, being a sovereign nation and all of that.

An act of war? Possibly, but it could certainly be considered interference in another nation's affairs. If the USSR had interfered with US missile tests, it certainly would have been called as such by whichever admin. happened to be in power. The US is in a bind with that course of action. If it works, it's a can of worms, but the US action would make a hell of a statement as to our capabilities. If it doesn't (i.e. we shoot and miss, just like the last half-dozen tests), pandora's box just opened a bit more.

Um, yeah. They probably figure into the mix too somehow. Maybe we should've left them at the table with the multiparty talks...

Anyway this is pretty tricky stuff and unfortunately we are saddled with the most incompetent foreign policy Administration perhaps in our history to make these critical decisions.

China is absolutely key to this crisis. They have leverage over NK that the US can only dream of. The trick is getting them to use it in a manner that, at the very least, doesn't hurt our interests.

I'll also agree I'd feel much better with other hands on the wheel of the ship of state dealing with this crisis. Is it too late to clone Dean Acheson, George Kennan, et. all?

Donger
06-19-2006, 08:43 PM
Um, yeah. They probably figure into the mix too somehow. Maybe we should've left them at the table with the multiparty talks...

Anyway this is pretty tricky stuff and unfortunately we are saddled with the most incompetent foreign policy Administration perhaps in our history to make these critical decisions.

If I read it correctly, Ms. Rice had a conversation with the Chinese last weekend about this very subject.

WilliamTheIrish
06-19-2006, 08:46 PM
Is it too late to clone Dean Acheson, George Kennan, et. all?

"Sometimes you go into talks with the diplomats you have."

-Donald Rumsfeld

Adept Havelock
06-19-2006, 08:58 PM
If I read it correctly, Ms. Rice had a conversation with the Chinese last weekend about this very subject.

That might be the first good news I've heard about this subject in a long time. I missed that, thanks Donger.

WilliamTheIrish
06-19-2006, 09:03 PM
I think if the N. Korean's want to have nuclear missiles, we should give them all they want.

Of course the type of delivery we give them may not be to NK's liking...

go bowe
06-19-2006, 09:04 PM
"Sometimes you go into talks with the diplomats you have."

-Donald RumsfeldROFL ROFL ROFL

banyon
06-19-2006, 10:50 PM
If I read it correctly, Ms. Rice had a conversation with the Chinese last weekend about this very subject.

I guess it's the least she could do, what with her being Secretary of State and all.

But those Madison Avenue shoes won't just buy themselves though.

tough choices indeed.

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 08:27 AM
I guess it's the least she could do, what with her being Secretary of State and all.

But those Madison Avenue shoes won't just buy themselves though.

tough choices indeed.

Maybe we should send President Clinton and Madeline Dimbulb back over there on a Jimmy Carter mission to negotiate another treaty the North Koreans can cheat on. Brilliant.

All of a sudden a missile defense system isn't such a stupid idea.

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 08:30 AM
Maybe we should send President Clinton and Madeline Dimbulb back over there on a Jimmy Carter mission to negotiate another treaty the North Koreans can cheat on. Brilliant.

All of a sudden a missile defense system isn't such a stupid idea.

Good thing we didn’t sit ‘round and wait on justification to begin development.

banyon
06-20-2006, 08:41 AM
Maybe we should send President Clinton and Madeline Dimbulb back over there on a Jimmy Carter mission to negotiate another treaty the North Koreans can cheat on. Brilliant.

Nothing speaks louder than results.

Under Clinton they did not appear to have nukes, we had surveillance and inspection privileges inside their facilities and they were participating in multiparty talks.

Under W, they appear to have nukes, and now ICBM's, we lost our inpspection /surveillance privileges, and there are no talks.

HC_Chief
06-20-2006, 08:42 AM
Nothing speaks louder than results.

Under Clinton they did not appear to have nukes, we had surveillance and inspection privileges inside their facilities and they were participating in multiparty talks.

Under W, they appear to have nukes, and now ICBM's, we lost our inpspection /surveillance privileges, and there are no talks.

ROFL
That's right, it's all dub's fault. You guys are hilarious. :D

stevieray
06-20-2006, 08:43 AM
ROFL
That's right, it's all dub's fault. You guys are hilarious. :D

History started in 2000.

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 08:57 AM
Nothing speaks louder than results.

Under Clinton they did not appear to have nukes, we had surveillance and inspection privileges inside their facilities and they were participating in multiparty talks.

Under W, they appear to have nukes, and now ICBM's, we lost our inpspection /surveillance privileges, and there are no talks.

:LOL: That’s the problem, it gave a false appearance. For instance, we now know they never stopped develop’n nukes, just paid lip service to us and we sped their development up for it. :rolleyes:
Also, in ’98, IIRC, they launched a missile test and parts of that missile wound up on the coast of Cali, not a big loss but still. ;)
So, quite obviously, things weren’t so peachy long before teh Debil stole the presidency.

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 08:59 AM
Nothing speaks louder than results.

Under Clinton they did not appear to have nukes, we had surveillance and inspection privileges inside their facilities and they were participating in multiparty talks.



And NK still cheated on the treaty and enriched uranium, making the rest of the discussion moot. Too funny. Thanks for making my point.

Bootlegged
06-20-2006, 08:59 AM
Looks like the missile has the capability to reach Kansas City & Chicago.

banyon
06-20-2006, 09:03 AM
ROFL
That's right, it's all dub's fault. You guys are hilarious. :D

I'm no Clinton supporter, but do you have different facts wrt N. Korea's Nuke development than I do?

banyon
06-20-2006, 09:04 AM
History started in 2000.

Ohhh. PWNED again by stevieray! He is truly the master insulter. How will I ever live this insult down? :rolleyes:

banyon
06-20-2006, 09:06 AM
And NK still cheated on the treaty and enriched uranium, making the rest of the discussion moot. Too funny. Thanks for making my point.

I'd still rather have eyes in their facilities and China involved in multiparty talks than jack/squat which is what we got now.

stevieray
06-20-2006, 09:08 AM
Ohhh. PWNED again by stevieray! He is truly the master insulter. How will I ever live this insult down? :rolleyes:

was I talking to you...?

Stop being such a pussy banyon.. I could care less what you think about my posts.

are you so arrogant that you can't see you are doing the same thing you accuse me of?

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 09:14 AM
I'd still rather have eyes in their facilities and China involved in multiparty talks than jack/squat which is what we got now.

My point is we're talking about a crazy third world type country that can't feed itself. It doesn't matter who is doing the negotiating, they're going to cheat/develop/push an issue that they hope can be used for their gain. Outside of paying them extorsion money we don't really have any bargaining chips.

As others have posted in this thread it's up to the Chinese to step to the plate and play big brother. Opening up our markets to China years ago should allow us the expectation they act responsibly in this case. If they don't well, heck. Close our markets to them and see how they like that.

banyon
06-20-2006, 09:15 AM
was I talking to you...?

Stop being such a pussy banyon.. I could care less what you think about my posts.

are you so arrogant that you can't see you are doing the same thing you accuse me of?


You commented on HC_Chiefs's reply to my post, so you could pile on and do some elbow nudging and winking about what an idiot I must be.

I don't think I've ever called you a name of any kind. I've just commented on the nature of your posts, which never speak to the issues and just cheerlead or insult.

I won't (and have recently tried to lay off) blast you for this posting method if you aren't commenting on something that I've said. But when you do, I'll be sure to point out what a hollow excercise it really is.

banyon
06-20-2006, 09:17 AM
My point is we're talking about a crazy third world type country that can't feed itself. It doesn't matter who is doing the negotiating, they're going to cheat/develop/push an issue that they hope can be used for their gain. Outside of paying them extorsion money we don't really have any bargaining chips.

As others have posted in this thread it's up to the Chinese to step to the plate and play big brother. Opening up our markets to China years ago should allow us the expectation they act responsibly in this case. If they don't well, heck. Close our markets to them and see how they like that.

I agree with the strategy in general.But that was exactly my point, that China needed to be involved in multiparty talks like they were (ugh) under Clinton. I'm not calling Clinton the greatest hero in the history of our republic, but on this particular foreign policy matter, his approach made more sense than W's.

HC_Chief
06-20-2006, 09:22 AM
I'm no Clinton supporter, but do you have different facts wrt N. Korea's Nuke development than I do?

hmm, let's see, the Clinton admin held talks w/ Kim Jong Il's crazy midget ass, the UN had access to his facilities, we promised to lift sanctions if he complied. He still enriched uranium, built the frigging bomb, and we lifted sanctions; implicitly aiding in the building of said bomb. This happened BEFORE W won the election -v- Gore. W takes office, plays hardball; taking a page out of old Raygun Ronnie's playbook.

So let's see, pander, make nice, N Korean's go nuclear. Play hardball, N Korean's say "we have launch missle can hit you!". Both instances, N Korea = badguys. Clinton admin was simply silly enough to think "negotiations" with a madman was a good idea/would WORK.

stevieray
06-20-2006, 09:23 AM
You commented on HC_Chiefs's reply to my post, so you could pile on and do some elbow nudging and winking about what an idiot I must be.

I don't think I've ever called you a name of any kind. I've just commented on the nature of your posts, which never speak to the issues and just cheerlead or insult.

I won't (and have recently tried to lay off) blast you for this posting method if you aren't commenting on something that I've said. But when you do, I'll be sure to point out what a hollow excercise it really is.

I'll post whatever I want. In whatever fashion I want. And to whomever I want..this board doesn't belong to you, so stop trying to be the post sheriff.

If you don't like it.. too bad.

Use the ignore button or go rent a backhoe to remove the sand.

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 09:27 AM
I'm no Clinton supporter, but do you have different facts wrt N. Korea's Nuke development than I do?

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm#1

banyon
06-20-2006, 09:28 AM
I'll post whatever I want. In whatever fashion I want. And to whomever I want..this board doesn't belong to you, so stop trying to be the post sherriff.

If you don't like it.. too bad.

Use the ignore button or go rent a backhoe to remove the sand.

I only use the iggy button for - ahem, shut your mouth -

But your response is noted. :lame:

HC_Chief
06-20-2006, 09:34 AM
hmm, let's see, the Clinton admin held talks w/ Kim Jong Il's crazy midget ass, the UN had access to his facilities, we promised to lift sanctions if he complied. He still enriched uranium, built the frigging bomb, and we lifted sanctions; implicitly aiding in the building of said bomb. This happened BEFORE W won the election -v- Gore. W takes office, plays hardball; taking a page out of old Raygun Ronnie's playbook.

So let's see, pander, make nice, N Korean's go nuclear. Play hardball, N Korean's say "we have launch missle can hit you!". Both instances, N Korea = badguys. Clinton admin was simply silly enough to think "negotiations" with a madman was a good idea/would WORK.

Minor correction: KJI was enriching <i>plutonium</i>. We told him to stop & we'd be nice and give them technology to aid in their "nuclear power" ambitions. So the little bugger switched to uranium instead.

It was after W took office that NK finally admitted to have the bomb (after spending the better part of a decade trying and succeeding in building one). But I can see how this is all W's fault... the development happened primarily under Slick Willy, but we got confirmation when 'dub took office... therefore, all 'dub's fault.

Thus, the ROFL "you guys are hilarious" comment. :D You nutsos will blame W for ANYTHING.

stevieray
06-20-2006, 09:34 AM
I only use the iggy button for - ahem, shut your mouth -

But your response is noted. :lame:

oohh look! banyon offers no substantive argument, just a one line "insult"

rep!

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 09:34 AM
I agree with the strategy in general.But that was exactly my point, that China needed to be involved in multiparty talks like they were (ugh) under Clinton. I'm not calling Clinton the greatest hero in the history of our republic, but on this particular foreign policy matter, his approach made more sense than W's.

And I'm saying Clinton's approach proved we're wasting our time going down that path again.

HC_Chief
06-20-2006, 09:47 AM
And I'm saying Clinton's approach proved we're wasting our time going down that path again.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..... ummm, errr, and you won't fool me again! :LOL:

banyon
06-20-2006, 10:14 AM
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm#1

Good read, although I don't think it contradicted anything that I stated earlier.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 10:23 AM
Looks like the missile has the capability to reach Kansas City & Chicago.

I guess I'd better get started on my bomb shelter afterall.

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 10:24 AM
Good read, although I don't think it contradicted anything that I stated earlier.

Nothing speaks louder than results.

Under Clinton they did not appear to have nukes, we had surveillance and inspection privileges inside their facilities and they were participating in multiparty talks.

Under W, they appear to have nukes, and now ICBM's, we lost our inpspection /surveillance privileges, and there are no talks.

Shortly after signing the agreement, North Korea began seeking nuclear weapons fuel through uranium enrichment. In the late 1990s, the United States began to receive scattered intelligence reports revealing a North Korean uranium enrichment program. Some evidence points to the existence of this program as early as 1987. 18 This program apparently received new life in 1997 when Pakistan, strapped for cash by U.S. sanctions, began paying for its North Korean missile imports with uranium enrichment technology.

Get that? They never stopped development. They just paid lip service to us.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 10:30 AM
I agree with the strategy in general.But that was exactly my point, that China needed to be involved in multiparty talks like they were (ugh) under Clinton. I'm not calling Clinton the greatest hero in the history of our republic, but on this particular foreign policy matter, his approach made more sense than W's.

W included the Chinese in multilateral talks. It was the democrat opposition that criticized him for not being willing to meet bilaterally with NK. Now, there have been some bilateral side meetings and we have you criticizing him for not pushing for more multilateralism. When will it ever satisfy?

The bottom line is that Bush has tried all manner of diplomacy short of making extortion payments to the NK as his predecessor did. The only thing that would do is encourage the North Koreans to rinse and repeat. That is the true legacy of Clinton's approach. He showed NK how to extract concessions from the US without really abandoning their nuclear ambitions.

The problem with the Chinese isn't so much that they either were or weren't involved in this meeting or that one, it's that they fear a unified, democratic, western-leaning Korea more than they do a nuclear armed North Korea so they have mixed interests in the region at best.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 10:36 AM
Good read, although I don't think it contradicted anything that I stated earlier.

Here's something you didn't mention and your post about "Clinton=Good Results; Bush=Bad Results" seemed to miss:

Shortly after signing the agreement, North Korea began seeking nuclear weapons fuel through uranium enrichment. In the late 1990s, the United States began to receive scattered intelligence reports revealing a North Korean uranium enrichment program. Some evidence points to the existence of this program as early as 1987. 18 This program apparently received new life in 1997 when Pakistan, strapped for cash by U.S. sanctions, began paying for its North Korean missile imports with uranium enrichment technology.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 10:38 AM
Get that? They never stopped development. They just paid lip service to us.

Ooops, I hadn't read your post yet.

go bowe
06-20-2006, 10:40 AM
W included the Chinese in multilateral talks. It was the democrat opposition that criticized him for not being willing to meet bilaterally with NK. Now, there have been some bilateral side meetings and we have you criticizing him for not pushing for more multilateralism. When will it ever satisfy?

The bottom line is that Bush has tried all manner of diplomacy short of making extortion payments to the NK as his predecessor did. The only thing that would do is encourage the North Koreans to rinse and repeat. That is the true legacy of Clinton's approach. He showed NK how to extract concessions from the US without really abandoning their nuclear ambitions.

The problem with the Chinese isn't so much that they either were or weren't involved in this meeting or that one, it's that they fear a unified, democratic, western-leaning Korea more than they do a nuclear armed North Korea so they have mixed interests in the region at best.do you really think that they would care more about encroaching democracy more than they would about a madman next door with a nuclear weapon?

what will the chinese do when crazy kim threatens them with a nuke over some disagreement?

and the west is now the driving factor in china's sizzling economy, there's no incentive in alienating their biggest markets...

of course, you could be right...

but i sure hope not...

go bowe
06-20-2006, 10:42 AM
Ooops, I hadn't read your post yet.oooops?

oooops, you say?

i thought meme had that one copyrighted or something...

Radar Chief
06-20-2006, 10:47 AM
do you really think that they would care more about encroaching democracy more than they would about a madman next door with a nuclear weapon?

what will the chinese do when crazy kim threatens them with a nuke over some disagreement?

and the west is now the driving factor in china's sizzling economy, there's no incentive in alienating their biggest markets...

of course, you could be right...

but i sure hope not...

They’d kill’im in a second and not even blink an eye over it.
Kim knows this, that’s why he won’t go rattle’n their cage.
He keeps us hop’n, distracted, he’s of use to them for now.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 10:50 AM
do you really think that they would care more about encroaching democracy more than they would about a madman next door with a nuclear weapon?

what will the chinese do when crazy kim threatens them with a nuke over some disagreement?

and the west is now the driving factor in china's sizzling economy, there's no incentive in alienating their biggest markets...

of course, you could be right...

but i sure hope not...

My thinking is that they believe that as long as they can keep North Korea at odds with the US and the rest of the west that North Korea will have to accept support (and influence) from the Chinese. As farfetched as the idea might seem, maybe I'm wrong. ;)

go bowe
06-20-2006, 11:04 AM
They’d kill’im in a second and not even blink an eye over it.
Kim knows this, that’s why he won’t go rattle’n their cage.
He keeps us hop’n, distracted, he’s of use to them for now.that's a strong possibility...

go bowe
06-20-2006, 11:06 AM
My thinking is that they believe that as long as they can keep North Korea at odds with the US and the rest of the west that North Korea will have to accept support (and influence) from the Chinese. As farfetched as the idea might seem, maybe I'm wrong. ;)this is also entirely possible...

i don't view it as farfetched at all, btw...

patteeu
06-20-2006, 11:37 AM
i don't view it as farfetched at all, btw...

I've heard that :bong: can help expand one's imagination beyond normal human bounds. :D

go bowe
06-20-2006, 12:13 PM
I've heard that :bong: can help expand one's imagination beyond normal human bounds. :Dbeyond human bounds?

like simian bounds perhaps?

or have i devolved (love that word) into squirrel mush?

it's hard to tell from this side of the pipe... :D :D :D

banyon
06-20-2006, 01:28 PM
Get that? They never stopped development. They just paid lip service to us.

So I said that they didn't have nukes.

Isn't that different than just having the enrichment program? That's what Iran has now, right? And South Africa allegedly had one for many years before they figured it out. I thought it was hard to get the detonation devices too.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 01:36 PM
So I said that they didn't have nukes.

Isn't that different than just having the enrichment program? That's what Iran has now, right? And South Africa allegedly had one for many years before they figured it out. I thought it was hard to get the detonation devices too.

So you are saying that based on results, Bush's policy toward Iran is going A-OK and that it will be the guy in the WH when Iran actually produces it's first bomb who screwed the pooch?

banyon
06-20-2006, 02:27 PM
So you are saying that based on results, Bush's policy toward Iran is going A-OK and that it will be the guy in the WH when Iran actually produces it's first bomb who screwed the pooch?

Good analogy but,

I'm saying that I liked Clinton's policy on NK better than Bush's, which appears to be "I'll deal with that when we are done with this Iraq sh**"

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 02:28 PM
Time to stop worrying and learn to love the bomb peeps.
I'll tell ya' the worry will kill ya'!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb.jpg

banyon
06-20-2006, 02:42 PM
And I'm saying Clinton's approach proved we're wasting our time going down that path again.

Ok. I disagree with an evaluation of past foreign policy measuring Bush's actions v. Clinton's. But the point is, something needs to work and soon. If W comes up with a great idea finally, I'll back him up. But hopefully it's better than just cranking up our half-a defense sheild, warming up the BFL (although it does look cool, Radar) and crossing our fingers.

Donger
06-20-2006, 03:17 PM
Ok. I disagree with an evaluation of past foreign policy measuring Bush's actions v. Clinton's. But the point is, something needs to work and soon. If W comes up with a great idea finally, I'll back him up. But hopefully it's better than just cranking up our half-a defense sheild, warming up the BFL (although it does look cool, Radar) and crossing our fingers.

What would you have them do? Seriously, what would please you?

banyon
06-20-2006, 03:38 PM
What would you have them do? Seriously, what would please you?

I made my suggestion, if it comes to it. But I'm open to a variety of alternatives apart from the sitting on our hands thing.

Donger
06-20-2006, 03:51 PM
I made my suggestion, if it comes to it. But I'm open to a variety of alternatives apart from the sitting on our hands thing.

We're part of a six-nation group that's talking to the North Koreans. We've also just activated our 'useless' missile defense system.

What else you would you do, short of attacking them?

banyon
06-20-2006, 04:03 PM
We're part of a six-nation group that's talking to the North Koreans. We've also just activated our 'useless' missile defense system.

What else you would you do, short of attacking them?

I thought we abandoned the multiparty talks?

Earlier it was posted that Rice was just "talking to the Chinese".

If you got a link, great. I don't have time to look now, I'll look around later.

Donger
06-20-2006, 04:32 PM
I thought we abandoned the multiparty talks?

Earlier it was posted that Rice was just "talking to the Chinese".

If you got a link, great. I don't have time to look now, I'll look around later.

I said earlier that Rice spoke with her Chinese counterpart last weekend. The US is part of a multinational group (US, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, I think) that last I heard, are trying to diplomatically settle this.