Democrats & Liberals: Archives

AP, it is absolutely insane to attack N. Korea without hard verifiable evidence of whether they do, or don’t, have a deployable nuclear weapon.

If they do, and our strike is the proximate cause of N. Korea releasing a nuclear weapon on a neighboring nation, the repercussions could be devastating depending upon the ‘fallout’ and wind drift.

If they don’t, attacking is far less consequentially problematic. Save for fighting a 3 front war. Of course, if we attack N. Korea, I would look for Bush using it as a pretext for largely pulling out of the Afghanistan and Iraq quaqmires, leaving them to whatever fate may await them.

You are absolutely correct, we need China, and S. Korea on board at a minimum if we are not sure if they have a nuclear weapon or, we are sure that they do. For they are the likely countries to bear the brunt of a nuclear blast.

Does anyone besides me feel a draft? Seriously. That would be the only way the US could fight two simultaneous wars at this point, especially when the Bush cabal is still pounding the Iran and Syria war drums. As for China, our only hope to neutralize them would be to hand Taiwan over to them in exchange for their non-interference. I am sure the warmongers would see little Taiwan as a necessary expenditure.

AP, it is absolutely insane to attack N. Korea without hard verifiable evidence of whether they do, or don’t, have a deployable nuclear weapon.

Dude, are you serious!!? When I say, Kim is “jumping around in 6-inch heels and a crazy coif yelling, ‘Look at me! I have nukes!’” I’m not joking. He says he has nukes. He withdrew from the NPT. He announced that North Korea is a nuclear power. That’s good enough for me.

And the point is to stop him before the nukes are deployable in the first place. If some already are, then we’d better hurry before the rest have been weaponized and developed to the point they’ll fit on a missile.

And now, Kim’s boys are talking about handing shipping container-sized nukes over to bin Laden. If there was ever a scenario that legitimized the “Bush Doctrine”, this is it.

The Sky is Falling!

Thanks, Chicken. Care to elaborate on why you’re comparing VP Dick Cheney to el pollo loco?

AP,

When it comes right down to it, free trade and walmart will bring China around, we could then send the ghost of elvis after kim jung dumb, he is truly a nutball.

China wants Taiwan, but they NEED western trade.
I think any two-party talks will be US/China and China will cancel Kim’s ticket if need be.
China is a dictatorship but they are a capatilist one, and north Korea has little to nothing they want or need.
If it comes to war, it will be a one bullet war, and China will pull the trigger.
( I pray I’m right about that)

David wrote:

AP, it is absolutely insane to attack N. Korea without hard verifiable evidence of whether they do, or don’t, have a deployable nuclear weapon.

That seems logical at first, but it’s that kind of thinking that got us into this mess to begin with. We have over a 50-year history now of negotiating with nuclear powers and bullying everyone else. Why do you think our enemies are so eager to get nukes? We’re basically saying “We won’t negotiate with terrorists and tyrants — unless they have nukes. So if you bastards want a chance in hell of surviving, you better get the bomb as quickly as possible.”

Is this really a policy we want to encourage?

I have only started reading here, mainly to see what is being said. I expected to take the opposite view with you on many subjects but this was not one them.

Attacking NK is not logistically or strategically feasible, for a number of reasons.

Until the troops are pulled out of the 60-year German quagmire, the US does not have the military strength to take on NK.

Economically, the US cannot sustain another front. The current situation is already have visible impact.

In the greater materialistic scheme of things, a liberated NK offers little, with the exception of a safer world environment. This safer environment may give the world economy a surge (one of those soft, un-provable until it actually happens, thing).

In my limited opinion, there is two things that need to happen.

China has been like a mother giving a drug user money for too long, it needs to stop. Bush or whoever needs to convince China of that. Until then Kim Jong Il will continue to prance around in his high heels.

Second, nothing comes out of NK except refugees. A full naval blockage, a complete sealing of all land borders and nothing less. This would require China to play ball in order to enforce it. Refugees should be encouraged in every way possible to leave. Every one that makes it out gets a free trip to the country of their choice, education in order to become productive and medical attention they will most definitely need.

Will that work? Is it possible? I don?t know but I don?t believe war is the way on this one.

IMO if Kim says he has nuclear capability and that NK would be more than willing to pass it along to others, he will.

Nevertheless a conflict with NK while we are still engaged in the Middle East would be risky at best. Bush could use an NK conflict as an excuse to pull out of (at least dowgrade) Iraq and his quest for terrorists in that region and let Iraq demolish itself.

If war is to be the answer for the NK issue, it needs to be a very agressive one minimizing the use of ground forces and weapons in favor of far more powerful and devastating ordinance.

Media reports that voluntary enrollment in our armed forces is significantly down. If this is true a draft would be the only reliable way to ensure enough manpower to be engaged in wars/conflicts in NK and the Middle East. This would amount to another broken promise by our government and further undermine the American citizen’s confidence in government.

The trickle down negative impact this would have on other major issues of the day would be disasterous.

We’re basically saying “We won’t negotiate with terrorists and tyrants — unless they have nukes. So if you bastards want a chance in hell of surviving, you better get the bomb as quickly as possible.”

Is this really a policy we want to encourage?

Rob, that’s a really good point. El Baradei over at the IAEA made a point of saying that, within a decade there will be 35-40 countries with nuclear programs capable of creating a bomb. I’m not too worried about Belguim, but the thought of Saudi Arabia with a nuke gives me the willies.

By attacking a nuke-less Iraq and treating North Korea and Pakistan with kid gloves, President Bush is definitely giving the wrong impression.

By itself, that’s not a reason to lay the smackdown on Kim & his nukes, but in conjunction with his threat to turn them over to terrorists if he doesn’t get whatever it is he wants, I think the Busc & Co are right to be deploying the stealth bombers to South Korea.

As far as China taking care of the problem for us, I don’t think that’s going to happen. As long as the US needs China to mediate, China’s “got hand”, if you know what I mean.

On the other hand, if President Bush goes on a real diplomatic tour de force and gets China and South Korea really comfortable with a post-Kim future, Kim may just disappear. I blogged about that here previously, but I don’t think Bush has that kind of diplomatic savvy.

What I mean is, I wouldn’t handle North Korea the way President Bush looks like he’s going to, but as long as he hammers the nuke/terrorist nexus and stays away from flimsy claims of of a secret NK uranium enrichment program which probably doesn’t exist (shades of Iraq there), it’s hard to fault the general direction he’s taking.

AP

I guess you are trying to show that liberals too can be bellicose.

This is one of those circular situations. In order to succeed at reasonable cost, we have to get China, S. Korea and Japan (probably also Russia) on board. But if we could get all those guys on board at the same time, we wouldn’t have to do anything else because we would have succeeded.

What we have here is one of those problems that cannot be solved under today’s conditions. That doesn’t mean it can’t be solved, because conditions change. But as a man of peace, I would have to say that we should wait for a better opportunity. If we act too soon, we will be left holding the bag again and face the criticism of those who we protect.

It is actually a good lesson in power politics. N. Korea possesses the deterrent that Saddam hoped to develop. The lesson has different meaning to different people.

In order to succeed at reasonable cost, we have to get China, S. Korea and Japan (probably also Russia) on board. But if we could get all those guys on board at the same time, we wouldn’t have to do anything else because we would have succeeded.

No, I’m not saying anything of the sort (though I personally think that would be ideal).

I’m commenting on the fact that the US government is pulling US citizens out of North Korea, the administration and the conservative media outlets have stepped up their anti-Kim rhetoric, and several F-117 fighter/bomber squadrons just got redeployed to South Korea (along with the heavy bomber forces that were redeployed from the US to the Pacific over the last year).

I drew the conclusion that a strike against NK is imminent - probably not too long after the one-year anniversary of John Bolton pissing off NK and halting the six-way talks.

Your analysis may vary.

I guess you are trying to show that liberals too can be bellicose.

Heh. Liberals have a long history of being bellicose when our national security is at stake. :)

AP,

“On the other hand, if President Bush goes on a real diplomatic tour de force and gets China and South Korea really comfortable with a post-Kim future, Kim may just disappear.”

Now there’s an oxymoron for you, George w. Bush, Diplomatic President.

North Korea has a real military with real weapons. America has been propping up the South Korean military for 50 years. If China was going to handle this, one would have thought that it already would have been handled.

If Saddam Hussein had been jumping around in 6-inch heels and a crazy coif yelling, “Look at me! I have nukes!” there wouldn’t have been any argument over invading Iraq.

LOL !

You think the Chinese are going to assist or hinder here. The Chinese like the fact that N. Korea is an irritation to the U.S.

Someday, there will be another major war, and it will probably start with one rogue, irritant nation (such as N. Korea) foolishly seducing two or more super powers into a world war. The real problem is not the irritant, puppet nation. The real problem is the nation that protects and encourages the irritant nation to annoy other nations.

Therefore, we should focus on the real problem. China.

AP said: ” I’m not joking. He says he has nukes.”

Yes, and Saddam Hussein said he still had WMD too! But, he didn’t!!!!!!!

We have to consider the possibility that Kim is fanning his peacock tail to look bigger than he really is. For if he is, and we abandon Iraq and Afghanistan for another fool’s errand, and refight the Korean War all over again with China backing N. Korea and the US backing S. Korea, we really will be displaying our utter stupidity as a nation to the rest of the world.

d.a.n, if you mean we should convince China they have nothing to gain from keeping Kim around, I agree.

But from their point of view, a united pro-US Korean penninsula is a threat right on their border. Korea is the traditional invasion route into China from the Pacific.

They also don’t want to encourage outside interference in a sovereign nation’s internal politics for fear it could happen to them - again.

A smart diplomat would find a way around the baggage and convince China it’s in their best interest to make Kim disappear. That would mean having a vision for post-Kim North Korea that’s good for China (and the US, of course).

Yes, and Saddam Hussein said he still had WMD too! But, he didn’t!!!!!!!

No David. Saddam consistently denied he had nukes.

Or any other WMD.

David,

If we pull out of Iraq and Afganistan now we will also show the world our lack of commitment to world freedom from the terroist threat.

Does the Bible say anywhere that Armageddon actually has to take place on the plains of Armegeddon?

Jack said: “What we have here is one of those problems that cannot be solved under today�s conditions. That doesn�t mean it can’t be solved, because conditions change. But as a man of peace, I would have to say that we should wait for a better opportunity. If we act too soon, we will be left holding the bag again and face the criticism of those who we protect.”

On this we agree entirely. Only if have hard intelligence that Kim does have nuclear weapon production capability, is there any sense of urgency. But, even if he does, it is a Saddam Hussein situation.

If Saddam used WMD, he knew his reign would be over. If his WMD were found, he knew his reign would be threatened. Hence, it was reasonable to predict that even if Saddam had WMD, he would not use them for self-preservation reasons. This line of reasoning appears to be equally applicable to Kim Jung Il.

Rocky, since before the first Gulf War, US military policy has been to have the capability to fight two wars simultaneously. Since that war, the two countrys the military has used for planning purposes were Iraq and North Korea.

Gen. Myers in his latest briefing to Congress says “We will prevail. The timelines may have to be extended and we may have to use additional resources but that doesn’t matter because we’re going to be successful in the end.”

I’m assuming by additional resources he means unconventional weapons, but who knows.

In case of armed conflict, “There is no doubt what the outcome would be,” said one senior official. “But it may not be as pretty,” said another.

If Saddam used WMD, he knew his reign would be over.

Again, Saddam always denied he had WMD.

In any case, President Bush isn’t sending stealth bombers to South Korea on a goodwill tour. Reagan hit Libya without starting a war. Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear power plant back in the 80’s without starting a war. Maybe Bush thinks he can do the same thing.

But I know that President Clinton was planning on a strike like that in 1994, and he and his advisors fully expected a North Korean counterattack into the South.

AP, you know as well as I that Saddam led the world to believe he had WMD. First, he made movements with heavy transport equipment to mislead, and shuffled personnel and trucks hours and days before inspectors were to visit a particular site. He played cat an mouse on the issue in a way that appears to have had no purpose but to leave the question of WMD and open one in the minds of inspectors. He even denied access to sites, only to grant permission a short time later.

No, he led the world to believe to that he could still have had WMD. That does not negate the fact that it was unlikely he would have kept a smoking gun lying around for inspectors to find and use as pretext for removing him from power. He was a survivor and did not act carelessly about his hold on power.

Rocky said: “If we pull out of Iraq and Afganistan now we will also show the world our lack of commitment to world freedom from the terroist threat.”

We already showed the world that when we redirected our efforts away from OBL.

Hello:
Has anyone bothered to ask the almost 15,000,000 residents of Seoul what they want or what their opinion is? Or don’t their opinions count? Just thought I’d bring this up. Oh, reminder here, Seoul is within an hours drive of the border and has at least 5k artillery pieces aimed at it.

Later,
Wayne

Does North Korea have nuclear weapons and, would they release it in that region of the world to make the point that they have the capability?

Has the US been planning for the potential of fighting a war on two fronts for quite some time and, if so do we have the resources?

In my opinion the answer to both questions is yes. My concern is how the existing war in Iraq will change if we have to redirect our attention to NK. The war in Iraq requires more ground forces than the one in NK would. I project that a conflict in NK will be more of a longer range missile launching type of engagement requiring more technology and strategy than actual ground combat.

The weapon that certainly exists with equal or greater devastation potential than nuclear weapons is chemical compounds. On one hand you can say that if you launch a nuclear attack you don’t have to worry about chemicals or, won’t even need them. Missiles, nuclear warheads, etc. can certainly be outfitted with chemicals spread by the explosion itself. A greater fear is chemicals that come through the mail, in medications, airborne, on imported product and, immigrants as carriers. There are a myriad of other ways as well. The chemical war offers far less opportunity of victory. By the time it runs it’s course, mankind itself may be gone or close to it. How do we plan for this eventuality?

steve smith,

I don’t remember hearing that North Korea had chemical or biological weapons.

Wayne,

Our military presence has been an ongoing sore spot to the population of South Korea for quite some time, just as it has been on Okinawa. This is the classic “Catch 22” situation. They don’t want us there, but they would rather that we wouldn’t leave.

At present I belive we have 35,000 troops in South Korea. Certainly not enough to cause North Korea any sleepless nights.
IMHO, if we do go to war against North Korea, this will be the begining of the end. I hate to sound apocalyptic here, but there are just too many variables, and Mr. Bush, as I mentioned before, isn’t known for his diplomatic skills.

1)Is North Korea a real threat, or are they waving around their claims for the same reason Saddam did- to get power from a world they’d otherwise not get respect from?

2)Do we have the wherewithal to fight a third ongoing war, with our budget in the condition it is in?

3)Can we guarantee the security of North Korea’s arsenals, so as not to repeat the looting that took place after the fall of Baghdad?

4)Do we have a sufficiently good picture of the situation on the ground in North Korea to avoid the intelligence failures that have plagued us elsewhere?

5)Can we ensure that nobody’s going to get any bright ideas about upsetting our interests while we are occupied in our three wars?

I can probably think of more questions, but I think the unsympathetic character of this government shouldn’t be the only factor we weigh in striking at them. We are already at war in two other countries, and unless there are compelling reasons to invade North Korea, we have no business risking our interests in the rest of the world by overextending ourselves even further than we have.

North Korea will be a tough nut to crack. It’s last war with us was half a century ago, and the country is a hardened military dictatorship. I do think that a draft would be inevitable if we decided to invade that country, even with the soldiers we have on the ground.

War is a difficult solution to any problem. It should only be the solution to North Korea if we can do it right, for the right reasons.

Oh, reminder here, Seoul is within an hours drive of the border and has at least 5k artillery pieces aimed at it.

Good point, Wayne. I had heard it was on the order of 10,000 missiles and artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. If something should happen, the capital of South Korea would be a blazing mess before we could say “Glorious Leader” (or whatever the nutball is now being called).
And as far as China helping out - I wouldn’t count on it. Lets not forget that even though it has the trappings of capitalism, it is still a communist regime that has never given up the revolutionary principle of destroying the West. Also, they hold so much of our foreign debt that they can pretty much thumb their nose at us. If they were to begin cashing in, our economy would take a nose-dive the likes of which we haven’t seen in years. So…we threaten NK, stroke China’s ego and try to keep negotiating through back channels…And then what happens?

There is a lot of oversimplification and ignorance of history in this thread. The idea that the US went around and imposed its form of government on other countries is ludicrous. But it is my observation that in order to push our agenda we often resort to caricature of the facts. I was challenged on another thread when I made the comment that the US was founded on liberal principles. Is there any fact that will go unchallenged if it doesn’t support ones own political philosophy? It does weary a mind.

Oops, wrong thread.

Is this all for real??? Am I reading that you favor a U.S. military action against North Korea based on the fear that they might have nuclear capability and they might deliver some of these into the hands of our sworn enemies? And how many lives, how much blood will it take to satisfy you fear mongers? What is this, the Zel Miller wing of the Democratic party? And I don’t think any elaboration is necessary when comparing Dick Cheney or George W (God wants me to be president) Bush, or any of the other neocon wingnuts to our latest manifestation of the devil, Kim. Where does our blood-lust for world domination end?

If I was getting picked on by the neighborhood bully and I realized I could never win a conventional fight against him, I would pick up the biggest stick I could find too.

We need to put our stick down first if this is ever going to stop.

AP,

If you think China will help North Korea in the event of a war, you’re mad. There is no way in hell China would lend assistance to them (especially after their brief border conflict). My supposition is that China wants the U.S. to squirm. The less the U.S. can focus on China the happier they’ll be. That is why they probably won’t lend any assistance to the U.S. unless it is obviously to their advantage.

The question here is will North Korea strike back if attacked? We all know Bush only attacks Countries that can’t fight back. Does Bush have the cojones to hit anybody that hits back?

AP,
You make a solid point, that North Korea is potentially a great threat than Iraq. Unfortunately, I do not see a viable military option, or at least, I don’t see how the US can apply the Bush doctrine here. South Korea will not approve a military strike, and given that we have over 30,000 troops there, I doubt we would disregard their wishes.
The real problem is that both China and , to a large extent, South Korea both fear a collapse by North Korea more than a nuclear armed North Korea. China knows that a nuclear North Korea is not a threat to them. As for South Korea, they honestly believe that they can literally buy North Korea off. Thus, neither country will do anything to stop North Korea from testing nuclear weapons, that will increase the possiblity of a economic collapse in North Korea (although I would argue that has already happend!).
Thus, George Bush, much like Bill Clinton, does not have many credible options. The policy I see the US and Japan adopting is the following:
1) Prepare for blockade: A nuclear North Korea is a disaster, a nuclear North Korea selling weapons is a nightmare. Thus, to prevent that, the US will have to put a blockade around the country. The US, Japan, Australia, and even France, have been preparing for the scenario for several years now. Navies from the above nations have been practicing intercepting ships in the Coral Sea (just above Australia, and the scene of a famous US WWII campaign for you history buffs). The North will have minimal capability to intefere with said blockade, since the blockade will not have to be that close to shore to be very effective. The US has intercepted ships from North Korea before (the US intercepted a shipment of SCUD missles from NK that were destined for Yemen..unfortunately, we evantually released them). The only way for the North to effectively evade the blockade is to use Chinese or Russian land/airspace. I would be shocked that either country would agree to that, since it could have grave consequences for either nation should such weapon evantualy be used against the US.
2) Japan will develop nuclear weapons: China will go ape when that happens, but Japan really does not have a choice. Once North Korea tests a nuclear weapon (which will evantually happen), Japan will be forced to develop nuclear weapons. What is to prevent North Korea from blackmailing Japan with their new nukes except the threat of 2nd strike? While the US may try to appease Japan, but coupling our “nuclear strategy” by openly stationing nuclear weapons on Japanese soil, such a policy will work no better than it did in Europe. In such a high stakes game, the only weapons that a statesmen can truly count on are those he/she has direct control of.
3) Continue to develop missle defense: North Korea is the poster child for the need for a missle defense. North Korea does not have the economic power to produce enough missles overwhelm a missle defense, and any missle defense dramatically escalates the risk for North Korea in using a nuclear weapon. How can they be sure that a weapon will get through? (This same idea also applies to China..) Moreover, it also increases the risk of selling nuclear weapons, since it also makes a first strike by the US(or an ally) much more credible and effective. God willing, we will never need to consider such an option, but if we suspect North Korea is selling nuclear weapons to Al Queda or Hezbollah, a first strike may be the only option that ensures success.
While I am sure David will hate the last option, missle defense should be a viable option.

Nonsense. A ground war is the way to go!!! I am sure another Bush Shock and Awe will force Regime Change in North Korea. The thought of so many of you belittling US Troops is shocking. The US Army would have no problem Spreading Freedom in North Korea. We would suffer only light casualties and be gone from there. In fact, I am sure the war will pay for itself!!! South Korea will be so happy they will reimburse us. Why do you hate Freedom?

Thucydides-
A blockade is an act of war. During the Cuban Missile crisis, we had to call what we did a quarantine, lest the Russians use our act as pretext for military retaliation.

In terms of Japan developing nuclear weapons, I don’t think it is permitted them, and I don’t think the only nation in the world to ever come under nuclear attack is going to feel like making a nuke themselves.

As for missile defense, the trouble is it’s not a viable option. The damn things don’t work. It’s no big secret. We don’t need a policy based on weapons made of unobtainium here, we need something we can actually use.

Obviously, Aldous is a pseudonym for Ann Coulter.

I can’t believe people here a talking about another war,look at the mess that is Iraq.
The U.S will be commited there for years yet.

With no slight meant towards your plausible scenario AP, but from your vantage point several time zones away this may look credible and alarming. But, back home, a safe distance away from the Beltway, this smells like a Karl Rove PR offensive to change the subject.

Bush’s press conference today was another poor performance, the assault on Newsweek has left the Pentagon vulnerable to more admissions of detainee abuses, nothing good to say about Iraq, and Arlen Specter is probably more popular than the President, right now.

So, the White House trots out Dr. Doom to inject some needed fear and testosterone into a flaccid, battered party and Conservative movement.

We’ll see if it works.

AP, you know as well as I that Saddam led the world to believe he had WMD…. He played cat an mouse on the issue in a way that appears to have had no purpose but to leave the question of WMD and open one in the minds of inspectors.

David, I’m glad you’re not still trying to say Saddam actually admitted he had WMD, because he consistently denied it. As for appearances, I’ve heard that exact same argument from the architects of that war.

A simpler explanation is the one offered by Hans Blix and the inspectors themselves. Saddam was trying to trade inspections for concessions. It’s an explanation that has eyewitness credibility and doesn’t require a vast conspiracy.

The idea that Saddam was somehow, for some purpose, creating the illusion that he really had WMD while all the while denying it is just Bush administration spin created after it became clear there was no WMD. Go check the date on when that particular conspiracy theory first cropped up.

As I said, if Saddam had been yelling “I have WMD!”, there wouldn’t have been any debate over invading Iraq. On the other hand, Kim Jong Il is telling everyone he has nukes. He’s gone through two rounds of fuel rod reprocessing since he unilaterally withdrew from the NPT in 2002. And no one in the world except you is saying he might not have nukes.

The only question is if he’ll deliver them to al Qaeda like he said he would, “The United States should consider the danger that we could transfer nuclear weapons to terrorists, that we have the ability to do so.”

As in the words of Bush Junior:

This is absurd!!! You all hate America!!! These statements were all made by people trained to disassemble the truth!!! Absurd, I say!!! Why do you all hate America?

What is this, the Zel Miller wing of the Democratic party?

Don’t make me challenge you to a duel. :)

this smells like a Karl Rove PR offensive to change the subject

Bert, I hope you’re right - sort of. But I can’t remember the last time I was wrong.

We’re getting fairly far down the page here, let me summarise:

• Kim Jong Il has nukes and has threatened to give them to al Qaeda.
• Cheney, Rice, and the right-wing think tanks are ratcheting up the rhetoric.
• The administration is pulling US citizens out of North Korea.
• Bush just deployed several squadrons of F-117 stealth fighter/bombers to South Korea.
• Japan’s keeping a US secret that it’s not willing to share with South Korea.
• This month is the one-year anniversary of North Korea walking away from the six-party talks.

My call: The scale of military and diplomatic preparations suggests a Libya-style strike on either North Korea’s nuclear assets or its leader.

Bert, you’ve got an interesting “Wag the Dog” theory there. But I just don’t believe the Bush administration, which piled on Clinton for leaving the North Korea problem dangling for eight years, is going to leave office without tying up this loose end as well as Iraq.

hey all:

Just thought I’d throw my 2 bits worth in on this one. First, has any one thought this one through? I mean really given it serious thought? What are you gonna tell your grandchildren when 25, years from now when she/he asks or tells you this “Damn, grandpa/ma I just got orders for… (insert as appropriate)Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran(only a matter of time) or heaven forbid Pakistan They have nukes and have tested them. Oh, does anyone think for one minute that a draft board can’t be convenved? I don’t see where without endangering troops lives unneccesarilly we can avoid it. We never leave anywhere, without being thrown out, either by attrition, military costs or public opinion (Somalia, Haiti, Vietnam). Does anyone remember these 3 places from recent memory, (Bosnia-Herzagovina, Macedonia, Kuwait) guess what, We are still there! Not possible you say, Well was I ever surprised when I received my orders telling me to report to the replacement battalion in Germany in 1989, or to The Republic of South Korea in 2002. Look at where we were after WWII, guess what? We are still in alot of those very same places. We just celebrated the 60th Anniversary of the End of WWII. Here it is some 50+ years after hostilities ended on the Korean Penninsula .. Where are we today? You guessed correctly if you answered still there and not a lick closer to a lasting peace. We were supposed to be out of Bosnia 5 Years ago, that came and went. Kuwait you ask, ask yourself this “I am small But I can have the largest Navy in the world protect me.”
What would you do? You are being hoodwinked, and being sold a bottle of snake oil, if you don’t think so.
So, what are you gonna tell your grandkids when they come home with orders that say just what I have stated?
Chilling isn’t it?
As always,
Wayne

I am a life long radical Democrat but I get tired of fellow Democrats making accusations and blaming everything on the Republicans WITHOUT supporting evidence in their writings. How can we win back the government when we can’t make our point without making it sound like sour grapes and propoganda.

willieboy, Aldous was being sarcastic… He’s not actually a “conservative,” nor is he comprable to Ann Coulter.

Thucydides,

China knows that a nuclear North Korea is not a threat to them.

Eh, I can talk to the Chinese people I know again, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t that lackadaisical about North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. Perhaps you have some secret information you’re not sharing with the rest of us, but your opinion seems rather baseless.

As for South Korea, they honestly believe that they can literally buy North Korea off.

Again, this seems baseless. Is there some statement or other piece of information that you’re not telling us about? For my part, I have never heard a South Korean official take such a stance on North Korea nor do their actions point to that. Of course, I could be wrong, but where’s your proof?

As for your bit on missile defense, good luck with that. If they come out with any valid system of missile defense, I will be the first to applaud it.

JUST A KOOKY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS

The biggest problem is that Kim Jung mentally Ill is that they POSSESS a THREE STAGE ROCKET and that all three stages have been fired, tested and are ready to hit California intercontinentally. This guy is a KOOK he is helping Iran in a Free trade about Uranium. Both Countries admitted to this. What If he gives that Rocket to the Iranians we will be toast and so will Israel and Great Britain. He needs to take a serious dirt nap.
Hey let’s face it they already have the bunkers being built right now to test the nuke the SEMP nuke at that. Yes they have SEMP Bombs but SEMP nukes are a whole new breed of terror machine that no one can afford. Even The IAEA has Egg on it’s face over IRAN and there two track nukes issue. They now have there centrifuge problem Fixed and are reprocessing the uranium, with a little help from there friends the NORTH KOREANS.

Does All this sound like tripe!

Chris, I’m feeling doubtful, so I would like your sources if that’s ok with you.

However, assuming what you say is true, Kim Jong-Il doesn’t have a death-wish and won’t just randomly send a nuke off to California… If we corner him I’m sure he’ll try, but so long as we handle the situation correctly, we’ll be fine…

ZEEK

Try JOHN LOFTUS.com

ZEEK

Then try listening to 77Wabc online to hear the latest in us intelligence.

Chris, I’d rather try VOA or CIA or IAEA or even IISS. You don’t learn anything useful from crackpots on right-wing radio.

I don’t know if the average level of critical thinking in this country has gone up or down over the last couple decades, but it’s clearly not adequate.

Wayne, the US occupied China for over a hundred years. Did we stay too long or leave too soon? :)

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant or openly biased some of you folks appear to be. The unfounded fear of a unilateral action on the Korean peninsula by an American administration, of any stripe, is ludicrous. Seoul would be at risk most directly and immediatly. They are literally a lanyard pull from full scale war. The good news is they are as prepared for it as any people on the planet. Logistically, the North could sustain operations no more than 72 hours. The war would be fought almost exclusively with Korean ground troops (Us troops have been pulled south to well below Pyong Teak, out of range of MOST artillery)the air resources of the US already in theater, and whatever naval assets the Chiefs thought required. All the above require the consent of the South. The shooting would be over before China could mobilize (or we could shift out of Iraq or Afganistan-as it happens, totally unnecessary). Japan and, to a much smaller extent, China and the Russians would be at risk. Action without their aquiesence woud be tantamount to War and might require treaty obligations in at least China’s case. No administration would risk that. The Bush folks were perfectly safe in the Iraq operation, Korea would invlove the economies of the entire pacific rim and five of the top 10 in the world. China’s “vast reserves” of US forigne exchange would dry up overnight in any trade conflict with us, most being drained right now just paying for inflated oil. They don’t frighten ANYONE with that or we would have made changes in currency policy to deal with a TRUE threat. The US might take concerted action, but not unilateral;too much to lose. Korea’s missiles, right now, can destroy the south, threaten to hit a few cities in northern Japan and reliably land somewhere in the eastern Pacific. Korea has the most to lose-they are the “go-no go” folks.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know what the shelf life is of a nuclear bomb? I got the impression that they didn’t last long.

Julia

Shelf life; Depends on the fissile material…half life of plutonium is different than uranium, etc. The US builds its weapons pretty close to the line for critical mass to reduce weight among other things, so we used to physically test a representative to ensure the material wasn’t radiated away(decayed). Today we do computer modeling based on algorithims. Most countrys dont have the tech or the resources to do this so they bulid “cruder” weapons. They have longer shelf lives but have other drawbacks. Bottom line: rule of 7, about 7 years.

Nuke adendum:

The fissile material is recycled so that an arsenal may be preserverd. In a small arsenal, such as north Koera’s might be (for now), when all the “devices” are about the same age there would, necessarily be a “window” of vulnerability, when an oponent might risk an attack figuring a percentage of “fizzles” in any launched warheads. These are esoteric, purely military calculations of “acceptable” risk but are the basis for leader decision to “shoot”. Even a nuclear fizzle can do tremendous damage al la Sum of All Fears.

Chris, your sources aren’t credible because they have no first hand information, all they have are their own sources whose information they can twist and spin. I would like to know now what your source’s sources are.

I don’t need your political biased bull-crap I need to find some facts here (if that’s ok with you :P).

Thanks Tony.

figuring a percentage of “fizzles” in any launched warheads.

Another thing to consider: NK doesn’t have any missile-launchable warheads. They’d need to be delivered by heavy bomber or by truck.

AP,

Valid considerations. While I was not refering specifically to NK’s ability to arm a nuke missile and launch (although that probably is not outside their tech envelope as you would indicate)they are producing, supposedly, weapons grade plutonium. They have the required explosives and swithches tech via Pakistan that only leaves guidance. We gave the Chinese the required guidence technology to put satelites up for us. It is not unreasonable to assume the Koreans have it in some form. The threat they represent is real. The difference is that in Sadam’s case, he had used chemical weapons both externally AND internally, the UN inspectors had verified, cataloged and sealed stocks of the weapons but could’t account for their disposal; ergo he still had them AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION. Failure to comply with the terms of a Cease fire agreement is cause for war. Sadam failed to comply, he was a threat, and the cost to the US (politically)of concerted action with the assembled coalition was negligable (and, I believe, still is, he WAS re-elected). NK represents a threat but unless and until the South is prepared to endorse the action, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

the UN inspectors had verified, cataloged and sealed stocks of the weapons but could’t account for their disposal; ergo he still had them AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION.

…or he really did destroy them in 1993 without keeping any documentary evidence acceptable to UNSCOM or the US. That’s what Iraqis always claimed, and neither Hans Blix, nor the CIA ever found any evidence to refute it.

As for the NK nukes, I don’t doubt they have missile technology. They obviously do. But by all analyses I’ve seen, they don’t have the technology or the expertise to build a nuke smalll enough to be delivered on one.

NKs nukes are the size of our WWII nukes, and can only be delivered to the battlefield by heavy bomber or by truck.

Having experienced Vietnam, I am skeptical that our politicians and general staff can handle a North Korean problem without screwing it all up.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Hindsight is nearly 100% accurate. The terms of the cease fire REQUIRED UN verification of the destruction. All the arguments for or against the decision to go in are moot. The decision was morally right, leagally correct by the terms of the cease fire agreement, and politcally expediant to the stated goals of the administration. Korea is a diferent matter entirely. I am not privy to either Pakistan’s nor North Korea’s technical data on the devices available. India and Pakistan BELIEVE each have the capacity to mount and launch IRBMs. NK got their tech supposedly from Pakistan, possibly Russia and China as well, it must be assumed, from a military point of planning, that they have this capacity and are merely producing the weapons from the available material. That could take some months of dithering with the usual forms of negotiation tactics while the production and refinement are underway. This does nothing to mitigate the South’s current position: they are unwilling to trade Seoul for all of NK.

Dee Lee

Having much more current combat experiance in Afganistan and Iraq, I will take the current administration’s “screw ups” to ANY administrations performance in ANY country in ANY period in history you care to name. They have successfully destroyed two sitting governments with attendent armed forces tens of thousands of miles from their bases, currently “occupy” both and support those forces for YEARS with less than 2000 killed. While the British Empire might contend, and certainly the Israeli’s could argue, they still come off a poor second. BUT..we ain’t doin’ NK ‘till the South says “Go”.

The decision was morally right, leagally correct by the terms of the cease fire agreement,

The fact that there was no WMD kinda negates those statements.

and politcally expediant to the stated goals of the administration.

Can’t argue with that. :)

I am not privy to either Pakistan’s nor North Korea’s technical data on the devices available.

That doesn’t mean it’s not available. According to every analysis I’ve ever seen - and that includes what’s been made publically available by the CIA and South Korean intelligence - they don’t have the tech to put a nuke on a missile. Yet.

You’re right about the South, though. Which makes me wonder what Japan knows that the South doesn’t,

“Japan is hesitant to share information and cooperate with South Korea because the United States does not seem to trust the country,” said Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi.

julia
the half life of a nuke is 10,000 years plus but the launch vieical and irv’s need mountly mantinace