Bomb North Korea?

[chucK]

What do you "imminent threat" folks (PP I mean YOU) think of this? Should we blast the N Korea missle before it's launched, if they don't back down?

 

From an Op-ed by Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry in today's Washington Post:

 

Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.

 

Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched.

[John Frieh]

Is there oil in North Korea?

[olyclimber]

It's time to put the "F" back in Freedom.

[billcoe]

What do you "imminent threat" folks (PP I mean YOU) think of this? Should we blast the N Korea missle before it's launched, if they don't back down?

 

From an Op-ed by Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry in today's Washington Post:

 

Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.

 

Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched.

 

That psyco putz General Douglas MacArthur had that idea and you see where that led.

 

Preemptive stikes will make the world a less safe, not a safer place to live IMO.

 

From the N Korean viewpoint, we have them targeted 6 ways to Sunday with nuclear weapons, both icbm and tactical warheads mounted on Lance Missles and artillery rounds. We are still at war and trying to destablize their regime.

 

I like the idea of a live full blown test of the intercept missle program in the event diplomacy fails. Might provide some assurances and keep the Japanese from heading the direction of the nuclear club as well.

[Jim]

I like the idea of a live full blown test of the intercept missle program in the event diplomacy fails. Might provide some assurances and keep the Japanese from heading the direction of the nuclear club as well.

 

Given that our missle defense system can't even shoot down incoming 30% of the time when it knows exaclty where a missle is going and where it came from I'd bet we're not going to show off that expensive hardware.

[G-spotter]

Yeah no shit, think of what happens when all the "terrorists" and "rogue states" see that you can't actually intercept a missile... the centrifuges will be spinning double quick.

 

 

Also those silly Canadians will feel pretty dumb for signing on to Continental Missile Defense if it doesn't work!

[JayB]

I'm more concerned about N. Korea selling its nuclear technology or bombs to other states or terrorist groups then them lobbing a nuke at us via an ICBM, which I think even the Koreans know would quickly bring a 1,000 fold retaliation upon them and mean the end of their regime, and that's just from us.

 

In the meantime, the thing that's staying the world's hand is not the fact that N. Korea posesses nukes, it's that there's roughly 20,000 artillery pieces just over the DMZ that would probably wipe out most of Seoul, and a good chunk of S. Korea's population as soon as any conflict started.

 

Not much more time to comment, but I actually think that the most effective play for the US here is to withdraw from Korea so that the Korean's have to live the consequence of their rhetoric and their actions, instead of letting the US play the bad cop and then stabbing us in the back at every opportunity. We'd still have the ability to strike at will via carrier groups, subs, etc. Other plays include using commercial ties with China to encourage them to hem in their attack-dog/bargaining chip, and hinting to both Korea and China that if they don't get serious we'll start arming the bejesus out of the Japanese and give them a free hand to do whatever they feel is necessary to preserve their security. I suspect that the prospect of a resurgent, heavily armed, and freshly assertive Japan next door might encourage both countries to get serious about dealing with Kim Il Sung and co.

[G-spotter]

And what happens when Japan and South Korea start going at it over Dokdo with those bejesusfull of arms you sold them?

[mountainmatt]

This sums it all up I think...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hgDLyLmjor8

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm more concerned about N. Korea selling its nuclear technology or bombs to other states or terrorist groups then them lobbing a nuke at us via an ICBM, which I think even the Koreans know would quickly bring a 1,000 fold retaliation upon them and mean the end of their regime, and that's just from us.

 

In the meantime, the thing that's staying the world's hand is not the fact that N. Korea posesses nukes, it's that there's roughly 20,000 artillery pieces just over the DMZ that would probably wipe out most of Seoul, and a good chunk of S. Korea's population as soon as any conflict started.

 

Not much more time to comment, but I actually think that the most effective play for the US here is to withdraw from Korea so that the Korean's have to live the consequence of their rhetoric and their actions, instead of letting the US play the bad cop and then stabbing us in the back at every opportunity. We'd still have the ability to strike at will via carrier groups, subs, etc. Other plays include using commercial ties with China to encourage them to hem in their attack-dog/bargaining chip, and hinting to both Korea and China that if they don't get serious we'll start arming the bejesus out of the Japanese and give them a free hand to do whatever they feel is necessary to preserve their security. I suspect that the prospect of a resurgent, heavily armed, and freshly assertive Japan next door might encourage both countries to get serious about dealing with Kim Il Sung and co.

 

agreed. pull out of Korea and Japan, and let them fend for themselves. If this means nukes for Japan, so be it.

[foraker]

Fuck Yeah! Let's pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan too and if it means nukes for Iran, so be it!

[JayB]

And what happens when Japan and South Korea start going at it over Dokdo with those bejesusfull of arms you sold them?

 

Don't think that's terribly likely, and if there's going to be a war, the presence or absence of US weaponry won't make much of a difference in the build up or the outcome. Besides, I think that the only way the Korean's would start anything with Japan is if they had China's backing, which is a possibility but not terribly likely. If push comes to shove I think that Japan prevails in territorial disputes with Korea under pretty much any scenario. The real players in that region are going to be Japan and China, and Korea will be a minor leaguer, exept with regards to N. Korea.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Fuck Yeah! Let's pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan too and if it means nukes for Iran, so be it!

 

Japan is not comparable to Iran. Ty pokazyvayesh sebya durakom - kak vsegda.

[JayB]

Fuck Yeah! Let's pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan too and if it means nukes for Iran, so be it!

 

Good point. Iran and Japan *are* equivalent societies in every respect, especially with regards to the threat that they pose to the rest of the world.

[archenemy]

Hello, Japan has been pounding on Korea since the beginning of time--they don't need our blessing to continue doing so.

 

When I was in Korea I remarked how there were no old buildings or pagodas that were very tall. I was told that's b/c the Japanese burned and bombed the shit out of them so many times that none were left. Ouch.

 

And as for arming the Japanese--apparently you've forgotten who started both World Wars. You really ready for numba three?

[foraker]

Sarcasm, JayB, sarcasm. It's the sign of fine literature....

[G-spotter]

And, you know, Japan has ninjas. THAT'S RIGHT, NINJAS.

[chucK]

How is the threat Iraq posed to us back before we invaded (or even what we thought posed to us) different than North Korea armed with nuclear weapons and a possible missle to deliver it anywhere in the continental US?

 

I would think that Korea poses at least the same threat of arming terrorists as Iraq, and MORE threat in terms of delivering the goods themselves.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Hello, Japan has been pounding on Korea since the beginning of time--they don't need our blessing to continue doing so.

 

When I was in Korea I remarked how there were no old buildings or pagodas that were very tall. I was told that's b/c the Japanese burned and bombed the shit out of them so many times that none were left. Ouch.

 

And as for arming the Japanese--apparently you've forgotten who started both World Wars. You really ready for numba three?

 

Japan started WWI?

 

I'm tired of the US being the world's policeman. Let S. Korea and Japan burden the share of defending themselves from N Korea and the Chi-Coms for a while.

 

And, S. Korea and Japan are not enemies about about to go to war.

[archenemy]

I promise you that South Koreans do not like Japanese folks one bit.

[G-spotter]

If you give the Japanese nukes, they might nuke the whales.

[archenemy]

And yes, Japan declared war on Germany in 1914 and that stirred up some serious shit.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I promise you that South Koreans do not like Japanese folks one bit.

 

and vice versa. but they aren't going to war.

 

it's always struck me with all the discussion about racism in America how minor it is in comparision to racism against Koreans...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

And yes, Japan declared war on Germany in 1914 and that stirred up some serious shit.

 

the way I remember it was that Germany, Austria/Hungary and Russia started it over that squabble about investigating the assassination of an arch-duke. France, England and everyone else just piled on...

[archenemy]

it's always struck me with all the discussion about racism in America how minor it is in comparision to racism against Koreans...

After being in Korea for a while, I can actually see why people may not like them.

But hey, racism exists everywhere. Everywhere.