User avatar
AirPacific747
Topic Author
Posts: 9581
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:16 pm

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37317782

With the recent nuclear test conducted by NK, how should the rest of the world react? More sanctions seems like the obvious answer but when is a military intervention the 'best' solution?

South Korea has now, according to the article below, threatened to 'completely destroy Pyongyang' in case of any evidence of an impending nuclear attack.

According to experts, 100.000 South Koreans would be killed in the first 24 hours in the event of a full scale war.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37331852
 
seb146
Posts: 14901
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:00 pm

But a massive flood over the weekend coupled with sanctions could lead to a humanitarian disaster

https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-korea- ... 31071.html
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
drew777
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:34 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:48 pm

Deploy THAAD missile systems and continue with sanctions. South Korea isn't going to start a war that would lead to many of their citizens being killed.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:02 pm

Unless China mainly, and Russia secondarily, are prepared to cut off aid, and smuggling assistance there's little the USA can do except provide a defensive weapons/military protocol. That is, unless the world is prepared for air strikes, bunker busters, and whatnot in the hope of getting all their nukes, many of which are probably hidden deep inside mountains somewhere, while not sucking the whole region into a WWIII situation.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Topic Author
Posts: 9581
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:41 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Unless China mainly, and Russia secondarily, are prepared to cut off aid, and smuggling assistance there's little the USA can do except provide a defensive weapons/military protocol. That is, unless the world is prepared for air strikes, bunker busters, and whatnot in the hope of getting all their nukes, many of which are probably hidden deep inside mountains somewhere, while not sucking the whole region into a WWIII situation.


True, but Obama has said that the USA will not accept North Korea as a nuclear armed country with missiles that could potentially reach Alaska.

So if the US sticks to that statement, that means at some point, a military intervention is inevitable.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 8833
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:54 pm

The USA accepted plenty of countries with nuclear missiles before...
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
DDR
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:09 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Unless China mainly, and Russia secondarily, are prepared to cut off aid, and smuggling assistance there's little the USA can do except provide a defensive weapons/military protocol. That is, unless the world is prepared for air strikes, bunker busters, and whatnot in the hope of getting all their nukes, many of which are probably hidden deep inside mountains somewhere, while not sucking the whole region into a WWIII situation.


Completely correct. N.Korea would collapse, quickly I think, if it was not for the support it revives from China. As long as China and Russia support N.Korea, there isn't much that the U.S. can do.
 
photopilot
Posts: 3101
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:16 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:51 pm

Hmmmm.......
Iraq - No weapons of mass destruction but lots of oil. Let's lie, then invade and go to war.
North Korea - Proven weapons of mass destruction, no oil. Let's do nothing but talk!!!
Seems logical to me. LMAO!!!!
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:30 pm

photopilot wrote:
Hmmmm.......
Iraq - No weapons of mass destruction but lots of oil. Let's lie, then invade and go to war.
North Korea - Proven weapons of mass destruction, no oil. Let's do nothing but talk!!!
Seems logical to me. LMAO!!!!


Yep. Saddam should have actually built enough WMD's like North Korea, then Americans would have thought twice about stealing his oil / starting a war so that US military businesses can profit from it.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:07 pm

photopilot wrote:
Hmmmm.......
Iraq - No weapons of mass destruction but lots of oil. Let's lie, then invade and go to war.
North Korea - Proven weapons of mass destruction, no oil. Let's do nothing but talk!!!
Seems logical to me. LMAO!!!!


You're deluding yourself if you think there were no WMDs in Iraq. The war may have been a mistake, but not for that reason.

I am no lover of the Bush regime, but let's not fall into the trap of believing Saddam Hussein was an honorable man.

DDR wrote:
Completely correct. N.Korea would collapse, quickly I think, if it was not for the support it revives from China. As long as China and Russia support N.Korea, there isn't much that the U.S. can do.


The US could reach a grand bargain with China- work together to unite Korea on the condition the US reduces or eliminates its presence in the peninsula. China has been walking a tightrope for a very long time with North Korea- squeezing them as much as they dare to try and ensure they can't develop any serious nuclear weapons, but not so hard the regime collapses.

Historically the North Koreans have been good at being annoying, but not annoying enough that they outweigh the benefits of China and the US's respective foreign policy goals for the region. Kim Jong Un's doesn't seem to have such a good grip on power though. If he starts getting too erratic China and the US may well decide to cooperate.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
DDR
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:13 pm

zckls04 wrote:
photopilot wrote:
Hmmmm.......
Iraq - No weapons of mass destruction but lots of oil. Let's lie, then invade and go to war.
North Korea - Proven weapons of mass destruction, no oil. Let's do nothing but talk!!!
Seems logical to me. LMAO!!!!


You're deluding yourself if you think there were no WMDs in Iraq. The war may have been a mistake, but not for that reason.

I am no lover of the Bush regime, but let's not fall into the trap of believing Saddam Hussein was an honorable man.

DDR wrote:
Completely correct. N.Korea would collapse, quickly I think, if it was not for the support it revives from China. As long as China and Russia support N.Korea, there isn't much that the U.S. can do.


The US could reach a grand bargain with China- work together to unite Korea on the condition the US reduces or eliminates its presence in the peninsula. China has been walking a tightrope for a very long time with North Korea- squeezing them as much as they dare to try and ensure they can't develop any serious nuclear weapons, but not so hard the regime collapses.

Historically the North Koreans have been good at being annoying, but not annoying enough that they outweigh the benefits of China and the US's respective foreign policy goals for the region. Kim Jong Un's doesn't seem to have such a good grip on power though. If he starts getting too erratic China and the US may well decide to cooperate.


Great post. You make some very valid points. It will be interesting to see just how much China is willing to put up with before they say enough is enough.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 8833
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:30 pm

Right or wrong, the US is the "great protector" of South Korea, and if you sell them out to China, that won't go very well.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
dfwjim1
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:34 pm

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe former President Clinton sent B-2s to Guam in the mid 90s with the implication that they would be used against North Korea's production facilities unless NK came back to the negotiation table. Sure enough they did.

Not sure what can be done now to stop NK but if they decided to use a nuke against the United States and/or its allies the country would be completely destroyed.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:41 pm

dfwjim1 wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe former President Clinton sent B-2s to Guam in the mid 90s with the implication that they would be used against North Korea's production facilities unless NK came back to the negotiation table. Sure enough they did.

Not sure what can be done now to stop NK but if they decided to use a nuke against the United States and/or its allies the country would be completely destroyed.


President Clinton realized quite wisely that a "stall" is a win. We are dealing with 70+ year old technology. Stalling a nation state for 10 or 15 years is a "win". Clinton had stopped NK from developing nuclear weapons. Yes, just "temporarily" but that's all you can hope for these days. When Bush came into office they adopted a "if Clinton was for it, we're against attitude". Only after NK became a nuclear power did the Bush Administration finally come around to the Clinton way regarding NK. The Bush administration was the most incompetent administration in a very long time.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 0097&hl=en
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:45 pm

zckls04 wrote:
You're deluding yourself if you think there were no WMDs in Iraq. The war may have been a mistake, but not for that reason.


Are you sir going on the record officially, and for all time here at a.net saying that the USA spending $3 trillion+ dollars on the Iraq War and subsequent expenses, was "worth it"? Not to mention the thousands of allies dead, and Iraqis dead? The reason the USA was told we were invading Iraq was because Saddam had nuclear weapon capabilities, or only months away from it. Do you sir, stand by this assessment? Now, after 13 futile years do you want to defend the GW Bush administration execution and selling of the war? Please be VERY clear in this.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:32 pm

drew777 wrote:
Deploy THAAD missile systems and continue with sanctions. South Korea isn't going to start a war that would lead to many of their citizens being killed.



Donald Trump would. I don't think he'd think twice about it

.
Aesma wrote:
The USA accepted plenty of countries with nuclear missiles before...


The other nations, like China and Russia, while being more often than not, ruthless, aren't run by a twenty-something who is living in a world more delusional than anyone else on the planet. I can see North Korea launching a nuclear strike, and thinking nothing will happen to it.

I believe, in the long run, the U.S, China, Russia and South Korea will have to find a way to pry open that nation away from these maniacs. Maybe China supports them to some degree, but not like in past decades. I think they're scared to death as well of those maniacs.
B737-100, B737-200, B737-300, B737-500, B737-700, B737-800, B737-900, B727, B-707 DC-10, MD-11, 763, 764, 777, 757-200, 757-300, A-319, A-320, A-321, A-300, ERJ-145, ERJ-170, ERJ-175, ERJ-190, CRJ-100, CRJ-200, DASH-2, DASH-3, DASH-8, BAE-146
 
Ken777
Posts: 9262
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:40 pm

Each step North Korea takes on nuclear weapons or ICBs is another step towards a amor conflict. Their leadership is simply too unstable or a reasonable solution. The challenge for the US is when to beef up naval forces in the area.

This is another one of those times when I wish the New Jersey was still operational - at least we can truly to find old guys who remember how to operate those big guns in order to get the new generation sailors trained up for when we need the BBs.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5864
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:12 pm

photopilot wrote:
Hmmmm.......
Iraq - No weapons of mass destruction but lots of oil. Let's lie, then invade and go to war.
North Korea - Proven weapons of mass destruction, no oil. Let's do nothing but talk!!!
Seems logical to me. LMAO!!!!


Actually Saddam had WMDs at one time, including during the 1991 Gulf War.

Just ask Iran which has tens of thousands of disabled former soldiers who Saddam ordered poison gas dropped upon. Saddam also dropped gas on internal Iraqi dissidents. He also had anthrax and other bacterial agent warheads for delivery on Scud missiles.

We know this positively, because the Reagan administration, and their Reagan's head Middle East terrorist negotiator - Donald Rumsfeld - supplied the technology, chemicals and knowledge necessary to produce them to the Iranian government.

One of Iran's long standing grievances with the US is that we made it possible for Saddam to hit their troops with mustard gas.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now as far as North Korea - the US government will never be able to build strong public support for a war in North Korea. For several reasons, but one is the collective memory of the Korean War.

Another is that while you can attack/ invade a country with chemical and/or biological weapons, a country with nukes is a completely different animal. No nation can really expect their troops to survive and be successful on a nuclear battlefield.

NK is an incredibly tough country to take with conventional warfare. The weather is horrible, it is bad tank country for much of the nation, it is perfect for a long lasting battle with lightly supplied troops in the hills and mountains coming down to attack the invading troops. A lot like invading Switzerland, only harder to control territory.

Iraq could be successfully invaded and militarily conquered. North Korea's geography doesn't offer the same chance of success.

(I'm talking about capturing the major cities and key logistical choke points - not about 'holding' the nation after the 'victory.)
Last edited by rfields5421 on Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5864
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:17 pm

Hillis wrote:
]The other nations, like China and Russia, while being more often than not, ruthless, aren't run by a twenty-something who is living in a world more delusional than anyone else on the planet. I can see North Korea launching a nuclear strike, and thinking nothing will happen to it.

I believe, in the long run, the U.S, China, Russia and South Korea will have to find a way to pry open that nation away from these maniacs. Maybe China supports them to some degree, but not like in past decades. I think they're scared to death as well of those maniacs.


The 'solution' to North Korea is pretty clear, and South Korea nor the US governments, no matter who is in the White House, will not like the solution.

Quite simply, China has to become so concerned/ threatened by the current NK government that they arrange a sudden change of leadership.

China particularly wants to keep NK as a 'boogie man' to scare the west, but they want their pet attack dog under control. The minute Kim Jong-in goes too far off the script - he will have a fatal illness, likely lead poisoning.
 
dfwjim1
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:43 pm

Read somewhere that China is deathly afraid of a NK collapse as it could to a huge refugee crisis for China to deal with.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:56 pm

dfwjim1 wrote:
Read somewhere that China is deathly afraid of a NK collapse as it could to a huge refugee crisis for China to deal with.


This! What would 25 MILLION refugees of different ethnicity pouring into your country do? Look at how quickly just a few million refugees are tanking European nations. Look how hard hit the USA was when just 250,000 Katrina "refugees" of the same nation created stress. A refugee crisis on the Korean peninsula would overwhelm China almost overnight.
 
seb146
Posts: 14901
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:01 am

zckls04 wrote:
photopilot wrote:
Hmmmm.......
Iraq - No weapons of mass destruction but lots of oil. Let's lie, then invade and go to war.
North Korea - Proven weapons of mass destruction, no oil. Let's do nothing but talk!!!
Seems logical to me. LMAO!!!!


You're deluding yourself if you think there were no WMDs in Iraq. The war may have been a mistake, but not for that reason.

I am no lover of the Bush regime, but let's not fall into the trap of believing Saddam Hussein was an honorable man.


Nobody ever thought Saddam was honorable. But, the fact is the United States was lied into war. They still have not found any WMDs. He had used them all long before Bush connected him with 9/11 and the "Axis Of Evil." Besides, with Saddam out of the picture, that gave rise to ISIS.

From what I have read about the majority of citizens of DPRK, saying they are impoverished is being optimistic. How does one take out an absolute dictator when his citizens have elevated him to god status without murdering those millions who have nothing at all to do with his obsession for nukes?
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
salttee
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:22 am

photopilot wrote:
Hmmmm.......
Iraq - No weapons of mass destruction but lots of oil. Let's lie, then invade and go to war.
North Korea - Proven weapons of mass destruction, no oil. Let's do nothing but talk!!!
Seems logical to me. LMAO!!!!

Oil factored into the decision to invade Iraq in exactly opposite fashion to the knee jerk "it's all about oil" theory that has been so popular. Bush was a Texan, he was beholden to the Texas oil interests who fund conservative causes including the Bush family. These Texans were interested in keeping oil prices high, they had no desire to see a gaggle of new Iraqi oil hit the market. They had to be reassured that the Iraqi oilfields would be shut down and then see limited production. The Iraq war was not about oil any more than it was about WMDs.

The Iraq war was supposed to be the beginning gambit and was to be followed up very quickly with the "liberation" of Iran. The invasion of Iran never came off because Iraq was never stabilized. What was supposed to follow the "westernization" of Iraq and Iran was snuffed out when the US Army found itself bogged down in Iraq.

The driving force for the invasion of Iraq was the Project for A New American Century. I'm not going to bother explaining who they are what their realpolitik purpose was (is) or how many of their signatories were employed in high levels of the Bush administration. All the information about PNAC is and has been freely available for anyone who wants to be informed.

By now, thirteen years after the war, any engaged adult who is unaware of the treason the PNAC unleashed on the US, is certain to remain so. There is no need for me to howl into the wind.
"Good genes, very good genes, Ok, very smart, the Wharton School of finance, very good, very smart."
 
Hillis
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:14 am

rfields5421 wrote:
The 'solution' to North Korea is pretty clear, and South Korea nor the US governments, no matter who is in the White House, will not like the solution.

Quite simply, China has to become so concerned/ threatened by the current NK government that they arrange a sudden change of leadership.

China particularly wants to keep NK as a 'boogie man' to scare the west, but they want their pet attack dog under control. The minute Kim Jong-in goes too far off the script - he will have a fatal illness, likely lead poisoning.


I agree, and that's why I mentined that those nuts up North might just be crazy enough to lauch something at China. I still think it would take the U.S, China, Russia, South Korea, and, to a lesser degree, Japan, coming together and militarily going into the DRPK. Yes, the risks are frightening, I know that. but it may be the only way to end that threat once and for all. It would be damn bloody, that's for sure.
B737-100, B737-200, B737-300, B737-500, B737-700, B737-800, B737-900, B727, B-707 DC-10, MD-11, 763, 764, 777, 757-200, 757-300, A-319, A-320, A-321, A-300, ERJ-145, ERJ-170, ERJ-175, ERJ-190, CRJ-100, CRJ-200, DASH-2, DASH-3, DASH-8, BAE-146
 
salttee
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Eyes on the prize

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:10 am

rfields5421 wrote:
The 'solution' to North Korea is pretty clear, and South Korea nor the US governments, no matter who is in the White House, will not like the solution.
Quite simply, China has to become so concerned/ threatened by the current NK government that they arrange a sudden change of leadership.
China particularly wants to keep NK as a 'boogie man' to scare the west, but they want their pet attack dog under control. The minute Kim Jong-in goes too far off the script - he will have a fatal illness, likely lead poisoning.

Meanwhile there are other considerations: larger considerations with greater potential longevity. The power struggle regarding China's territorial expansion has the potential to be of everlasting consequence. We can let Tarim go. We aren't going to stick our nose in Nepal. But we would not be wise to allow an aggressive, expansionist China to parcel up the Western Pacific as if they owned it: especially if they are going to generate a strongarm or undermining environment for other nations in the Western Pacific. We also should act to prevent any action which would allow China to designate sea lanes, restricted areas and so forth.

Korea is no big deal, N.Korea is not a threat to anyone unless Kim decides to go up in a crazyman's suicide Pyre, after which it would be all over in about three days: it would be forgotten in about ten years time ( we would probably have to invent another Kim as China probably would not stand for having South Korea and the US occupying 500 miles on the other side of their border.)

Fallout from current events in the Western Pacific may create the paradigm which would exist the next several hundred years.
I don't think it would be smart to get an arm tied down in Korea when you might need both hands elsewhere.
If you have to deal with Korea, then do so, but until that day (those three days), Korea is backburner.
N. Korea is no current threat and there's nothing imminent on the horizon.
"Good genes, very good genes, Ok, very smart, the Wharton School of finance, very good, very smart."
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:17 am

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Are you sir going on the record officially, and for all time here at a.net saying that the USA spending $3 trillion+ dollars on the Iraq War and subsequent expenses, was "worth it"?


Nope.

Not to mention the thousands of allies dead, and Iraqis dead?


Nope.

The reason the USA was told we were invading Iraq was because Saddam had nuclear weapon capabilities, or only months away from it. Do you sir, stand by this assessment?


Strike three!

Now, after 13 futile years do you want to defend the GW Bush administration execution and selling of the war? Please be VERY clear in this.


Nope. And I believe I'm being pretty clear- you just have to read what I wrote, not what you THINK I wrote. At no point in the above post do I address whether I agree with the Iraq war or not- I'm just correcting the (false) claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq when hostilities began

seb146 wrote:
They still have not found any WMDs.
.

Not true- they found plenty, and continue to find plenty to this day. If you have a war for ten years (with Iran), the weapons you produce don't just disappear off the face of the earth. It's almost impossible to track them, and equally impossible to get rid of them all.

Now of course one can question how feasible it would have been for the Iraqi regime to actually use any of those weapons, whether they could have destroyed them even if they wanted to, and whether it justified war anyway. The right will tend to believe Bush's motivations were pure and the left will tend to believe Saddam was a poor innocent victim. As always the truth is somewhere in between.

One thing's for certain though- the claim that Bush "lied" about WMDs is demonstrably false. As intelligence the WMD evidence may have been poor, but it was the same intelligence everybody else had. And the vast majority believed it at the time, even most of those who were anti-war. One could legitimately argue whether the WMDs were a flimsy pretext for an already predetermined war, and make a decent case. But the claims that Bush "lied" about the WMDs, or that there were no WMDs are both easily proven false.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:18 am

North Korea is not the threat. The United States is the threat. THE US has a BASE on the Korean peninsula. This is why the North Koreans got nuclear weapons in the first place. They feel threatened in a tough neighborhood.
Last edited by blacksoviet on Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:32 am

rfields5421 wrote:
China particularly wants to keep NK as a 'boogie man' to scare the west, but they want their pet attack dog under control. The minute Kim Jong-in goes too far off the script - he will have a fatal illness, likely lead poisoning.


It's not a boogie man so much as a buffer against a united Korea, which would inevitably be US backed. North Korea ensures that China remains the dominant economic power in the region (by a considerable margin).

Most of China's foreign policy is shaped by economic pragmatism, rather than any anti-Western sentiment.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
salttee
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:08 am

blacksoviet wrote:
North Korea is not the threat. The united States is the threat. THE US has a BASE on the Korean peninsula. This is why the North Koreans got nuclear weapons in the first place. They feel threatened in a tough neighborhood.

You're right, North Korea is no threat to anyone except its own citizens, although it is an ongoing source of damage to the South Korean culture and way of life.

The North Korean military doesn't have any capability beyond vandalism, and that almost exclusively would be towards other Korean people. A grand military gesture by NK would would be equivalent to lighting the match for ones' own funeral pyre. It would be all over within three days.

Some history:
North Korea is a buffer zone created as a result of the war Russia induced Kim_Il-sung to lead. From a Korean perspective, the war was completely unnecessary; it was orchestrated by Stalin and supplied by the Russian military. (I believe that it was done by the Russians as payback for MI6 and American shenanigans in Eastern Europe.) In any event, the war was an unnecessary tragedy for the Korean people, the Americans were pulling out of Korea imminently, it was a matter of months.. This was well known, it had been announced as US diplomatic policy - the US had declared that it had no interests in Korea or the region. But at that time the Russians had Kim_Il-sung in isolation - with him and his army in Russia - so he may not even have known this.

He militarily invaded the south when in a year's time he could have walked to the south and have been welcomed back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il-sung
"Good genes, very good genes, Ok, very smart, the Wharton School of finance, very good, very smart."
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4102
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:36 am

I just wish China stopped pretending they have no leverage against their whimsical boy and started reigning him in instead of publicly 'lamenting' the situation and doing absolutely nothing about it.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 8833
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:15 am

zckls04 wrote:
One thing's for certain though- the claim that Bush "lied" about WMDs is demonstrably false. As intelligence the WMD evidence may have been poor, but it was the same intelligence everybody else had. And the vast majority believed it at the time, even most of those who were anti-war. One could legitimately argue whether the WMDs were a flimsy pretext for an already predetermined war, and make a decent case. But the claims that Bush "lied" about the WMDs, or that there were no WMDs are both easily proven false.


France had its own intelligence and knew the USA was lying, and said so.

France built and launched spy satellites for this purpose, after the US provided fake intel to France during the first Gulf War.

France also had its own sources on the ground.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 5449
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:02 pm

zckls04 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
They still have not found any WMDs.
.

Not true- they found plenty, and continue to find plenty to this day. If you have a war for ten years (with Iran), the weapons you produce don't just disappear off the face of the earth. It's almost impossible to track them, and equally impossible to get rid of them all.
You would think that if this is the case it would be reported and would have validated the Iraq War. Yet don't we have both major nominees hammering each other for supporting the Iraq War? Can you provide a link that says WMD are being found to this day?

zckls04 wrote:
The right will tend to believe Bush's motivations were pure and the left will tend to believe Saddam was a poor innocent victim. As always the truth is somewhere in between.
Except no one truly believes Saddam was a poor victim. He was a scapegoat, which is different.

zckls04 wrote:
One thing's for certain though- the claim that Bush "lied" about WMDs is demonstrably false. As intelligence the WMD evidence may have been poor, but it was the same intelligence everybody else had. And the vast majority believed it at the time, even most of those who were anti-war. One could legitimately argue whether the WMDs were a flimsy pretext for an already predetermined war, and make a decent case. But the claims that Bush "lied" about the WMDs, or that there were no WMDs are both easily proven false.

Then I'm sure you'll be able to backup your claims and provide sources that indicate Saddam was in possession of WMDs at the time of invasion and that WMDs are still being found to this day.

And if your answer is "I'm not Google, look it up yourself" it means you don't have an argument to begin with.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
tu204
Posts: 1474
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:12 pm

AirPacific747 wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37317782

With the recent nuclear test conducted by NK, how should the rest of the world react? More sanctions seems like the obvious answer but when is a military intervention the 'best' solution?



Sanctions have not worked before and there is no reason for that to change now.

I realize it is difficult for Westerners to grasp, but when something doesn't work over and over again, it may be time to change the strategy. There is absolutely no reason for this strategy to work the 100th time you try it after the previous 99 have failed.

The most logical thing to do would be to offer cooperation and economic/humanitarian aid in return for DPRK in freezing it's nuclear program or at least a freeze on nuclear tests.

The more you try to push them with sanctions, the more they go into isolation and the less chance you have for constructive dialogue in the future.

Also it doesn't help when countries that in the past that abandoned their nuclear programs (Libya, Iraq) get invaded by Western nations. It is a good clue to everyone else: Develop your nuclear deterrent so that you are not next.

And one more thing: I don't believe that a preemptive strike against the DPRK will only leave 100,000 South Koreans dead. In the first couple hours maybe. Remember that you have 24 million people being told from birth that you are their enemy. If you attack them first, you will have about 15 million out of those 24 that are able to hold a knife/pitchfork/gun/RPG going at you.
Yes, the DPRK's arsenal is obsolete, but it is huge and Seoul is not that far away. That and they have had more than enough time to work out and plan out pretty much any scenario, offensive and defensive.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Topic Author
Posts: 9581
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:58 pm

tu204,

I think that by now, cooperation has been tried many many times too and humanitarian aid from the EU and US has also been provided for many years. It seems like there's no real solution no matter what you do.
 
dfwjim1
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:19 pm

AirPacific747 wrote:
tu204,

I think that by now, cooperation has been tried many many times too and humanitarian aid from the EU and US has also been provided for many years. It seems like there's no real solution no matter what you do.


I agree..seems like the best thing to do is to keep a strong military presence in SK and warn NK that their country will be totally destroyed if they use a nuclear weapon against the U/S. and/or its allies. Hopefully the NK government will eventually collapse and replaced by a much more responsible administration. NK is definitely a Pain in the Ass though.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5864
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:21 pm

tu204 wrote:
The most logical thing to do would be to offer cooperation and economic/humanitarian aid in return for DPRK in freezing it's nuclear program or at least a freeze on nuclear tests.


Been there, done that several times. Supplied millions of tons of food, basic clothing and medical supplies to NK at no cost. But as someone on this forum said.

tu204 wrote:
but when something doesn't work over and over again, it may be time to change the strategy. There is absolutely no reason for this strategy to work the 100th time you try it after the previous 99 have failed.


The problem is that the North Korean government says their people live at a good healthy standard, and don't need or want economic or humanitarian aid. Yes, I know that is a fantasy. But no one has ever said the North Korean leader/leadership doesn't live in a fantasy world.

tu204 wrote:
And one more thing: I don't believe that a preemptive strike against the DPRK will only leave 100,000 South Koreans dead. In the first couple hours maybe. Remember that you have 24 million people being told from birth that you are their enemy. If you attack them first, you will have about 15 million out of those 24 that are able to hold a knife/pitchfork/gun/RPG going at you.
Yes, the DPRK's arsenal is obsolete, but it is huge and Seoul is not that far away. That and they have had more than enough time to work out and plan out pretty much any scenario, offensive and defensive.


You are right - a preemptive strike will launch a war that will leave millions of South Koreans dead, almost all of South Korea's industrial infrastructure destroyed, and likely tens of thousands of foreign troops - US mostly - dead or crippling injuries.

Conventional weapons used in a standoff mode won't remove the NK government or produce major change in government or policy. Either North Korea has to be taken over in a long bloody conventional war, or North Korea has to be wiped from the face of the earth with sustained nuclear weapons attacks. Those are the only two military 'solutions'. North Korea is probably the most hardened, protected country against conventional (and nuclear) air attack in the world. Our efforts at bombing Al Queda in Afghanistan in 2001 would look like a huge, easy success. We have one nuclear direct hit survival facility - Cheyenne Mountain - North Korea has close to 2 dozen at last reports.

Yes, we can hit some of the North Korean infrastructure with conventional warhead cruise missiles. The US and Japan don't want to use manned bombers over North Korea. The anti-air capability of the North Koreans is huge and will guarantee substantial losses. After we get 30 B-52's, 20 B-1's and 10 B-2's shot down - the US would stop the air campaign. Even so,

Anyone dropping nukes on North Korea is going to have to fight Japan.

While Japan has renounced their No First Strike policy in relation to threats from North Korea, the country knows too well it will be in a primary fallout zone from nukes exploding in NK.

Also a nuclear war in North Korea will produce fallout problems in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington and Oregon - to start - the fallout will spread south and east across the US.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 8833
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:27 pm

tu204 wrote:
Also it doesn't help when countries that in the past that abandoned their nuclear programs (Libya, Iraq) get invaded


And Ukraine.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:30 pm

Aesma wrote:
tu204 wrote:
Also it doesn't help when countries that in the past that abandoned their nuclear programs (Libya, Iraq) get invaded


And Ukraine.


A civil war is hardly an invasion. Sure, Russia sent some peace keeping forces in to guarantee the safety of the Russian minority and to ensure that a lawful referendum could be held in Crimea, but if that's an invasion then Finland has invaded Afghanistan.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6515
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:44 pm

pvjin wrote:
Aesma wrote:
tu204 wrote:
Also it doesn't help when countries that in the past that abandoned their nuclear programs (Libya, Iraq) get invaded


And Ukraine.


A civil war is hardly an invasion. Sure, Russia sent some peace keeping forces in to guarantee the safety of the Russian minority and to ensure that a lawful referendum could be held in Crimea, but if that's an invasion then Finland has invaded Afghanistan.

Nah, Russia invaded. Period. Who is now completely subjugated under the other (not even as a vassal "state", though Crimea was never an independent state don't you think they at least deserved the chance to be independent as they desired)? You can fantasize that they didn't and then try to explain that what others do are invasions and that what Russia did was not but that is just you deluding yourself and no one can stop you from doing that.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
seb146
Posts: 14901
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:46 pm

zckls04 wrote:
Now of course one can question how feasible it would have been for the Iraqi regime to actually use any of those weapons, whether they could have destroyed them even if they wanted to, and whether it justified war anyway. The right will tend to believe Bush's motivations were pure and the left will tend to believe Saddam was a poor innocent victim. As always the truth is somewhere in between.

One thing's for certain though- the claim that Bush "lied" about WMDs is demonstrably false. As intelligence the WMD evidence may have been poor, but it was the same intelligence everybody else had. And the vast majority believed it at the time, even most of those who were anti-war. One could legitimately argue whether the WMDs were a flimsy pretext for an already predetermined war, and make a decent case. But the claims that Bush "lied" about the WMDs, or that there were no WMDs are both easily proven false.


You keep saying "Bush did not lie about WMDs" but give no proof.

You keep saying "the left thinks Saddam was an innocent victim" but give no proof.

So?
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5864
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:59 pm

seb146 wrote:
You keep saying "Bush did not lie about WMDs"


This is getting into semantics - but where is the proof that Bush did lie?

Do you believe for an instant that George W Bush was evil enough to condemn hundreds of US troops to death and thousand to life destroying injury if he didn't believe in his heart that an invasion was necessary to protect the world/ US?

Now I haven't been a fan of GWB since I first met him in 1992. I didn't think he was smart enough to be governor of Texas, and certainly not President. He is/was a lot like Ronald Reagan - he left all the details to his subordinates and didn't supervise them well. He is not smart, but he is not evil. Look at his post-presidency work. He spends an amazing amount of time with people who were injured and disabled in his war. He knows and demonstrated how much he the war cost people in the military, and how much he regrets their loss.

------------------------

As President, he was presented with information that said "To our best knowledge Saddam has XXXXXX"

Yes, the intelligence agencies and some members of the administration had conflicting information from other sources including some US sources. The President of the United States does NOT see raw intelligence. The intel agency professionals provide their summaries and analysis, the leaders of those agencies trim all that information into a less than one page summary.

And in the Bush White House - VP Dick Cheney and SecDef Donald Rumsfeld review those summaries, revise as they saw fit - and only then is the information presented to President Bush.

President Bush might have technically lied. But he did not go on television and purposely lie to the people.

If you want to point fingers, be accurate and point to the people who controlled the information Bush saw.

Yes, he is responsible for an unnecessary, unsuccessful war. But there were a lot of reasons other than WMDs that many Democrats believed justified the war when the Congress voted to support Bush's invasion.
 
salttee
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:40 pm

tu204 wrote:
they have had more than enough time to work out and plan out pretty much any scenario, offensive and defensive.
That is a two way street. We can be sure that the ROK and American artillery, surface to surface weapons and air power have the coordinates of every potential NK target already waiting in the que with prioritization and real time update capability. Also keep in mind that NK has no offensive capability beyond what could be seen as vandalism.

tu204 wrote:
Yes, the DPRK's arsenal is obsolete, but it is huge and Seoul is not that far away
The ROK and American arsenal is also huge; however it is not obsolete, not in offensive, defensive, air, ground, sea or electronic warfare categories. The target set provided by NK is not that large and we have seen twice in Iraq what happens when third world military meets first world military.

The North Korean military threat is much ado about nothing. Their only option is a very localized Armageddon.
"Good genes, very good genes, Ok, very smart, the Wharton School of finance, very good, very smart."
 
seb146
Posts: 14901
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:21 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
You keep saying "Bush did not lie about WMDs"


This is getting into semantics - but where is the proof that Bush did lie?

Do you believe for an instant that George W Bush was evil enough to condemn hundreds of US troops to death and thousand to life destroying injury if he didn't believe in his heart that an invasion was necessary to protect the world/ US?

Now I haven't been a fan of GWB since I first met him in 1992. I didn't think he was smart enough to be governor of Texas, and certainly not President. He is/was a lot like Ronald Reagan - he left all the details to his subordinates and didn't supervise them well. He is not smart, but he is not evil. Look at his post-presidency work. He spends an amazing amount of time with people who were injured and disabled in his war. He knows and demonstrated how much he the war cost people in the military, and how much he regrets their loss.

------------------------

As President, he was presented with information that said "To our best knowledge Saddam has XXXXXX"

Yes, the intelligence agencies and some members of the administration had conflicting information from other sources including some US sources. The President of the United States does NOT see raw intelligence. The intel agency professionals provide their summaries and analysis, the leaders of those agencies trim all that information into a less than one page summary.

And in the Bush White House - VP Dick Cheney and SecDef Donald Rumsfeld review those summaries, revise as they saw fit - and only then is the information presented to President Bush.

President Bush might have technically lied. But he did not go on television and purposely lie to the people.

If you want to point fingers, be accurate and point to the people who controlled the information Bush saw.

Yes, he is responsible for an unnecessary, unsuccessful war. But there were a lot of reasons other than WMDs that many Democrats believed justified the war when the Congress voted to support Bush's invasion.


Rumsfeld did not know how long the war would last and didn't care. Cheney did not know how long the war would last and did not care. Colin Powell took drawings to the UN to explain the administration's justification for war. Not any actual proof, just drawings. Bush used executive powers to decided war was the best option.

Bush lied and carried that lie over to the people. Yes, he did lie. Just like Clinton lied about getting a hummer. But, to give Bush a pass and nearly remove Clinton from office, which is worse? Lying is lying. But, the degree and circumstances. People flip out over the Clinton lie but are just meh about the Bush lie.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
salttee
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:51 pm

seb146 wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:
Rumsfeld did not know how long the war would last and didn't care. Cheney did not know how long the war would last and did not care.

Both of these fools thought that Saddam's army would be defeated in a couple of weeks (which turned out to be true) and that the country of Iraq would then be peaceful and grateful to the Americans (which turned out to be wrong), then they believed it would take the US just a short time to gear up for the main show - the invasion of Iran. This strategy is clearly stated in the PNAC policy statements.

Once again: The driving force for the invasion of Iraq was the Project for A New American Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century
"Good genes, very good genes, Ok, very smart, the Wharton School of finance, very good, very smart."
 
wingman
Posts: 3088
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:00 pm

Bush also lied when he declared to the world "Mission Accomplished". Of course all he has to do is just change the Mission he was referring to. George, tell 'em the mission was to create the biggest eff up in US foreign policy history and flush $2T dow the drain, then you won't be lying.
 
salttee
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:23 pm

wingman wrote:
Bush also lied when he declared to the world "Mission Accomplished".

Not really, he was so ignorant and uninformed that he had no idea that the Sunnis now had little choice but to evolve into religious fundamentalists and that the Shiias were going to invite the Americans to leave as soon as they had secured their military power. He simply had no idea that he had just handed Iraq to Iran's sphere of power thereby undermining genuine US policy goals in the ME.

So, at that time, he had no idea how badly he had screwed up.
"Good genes, very good genes, Ok, very smart, the Wharton School of finance, very good, very smart."
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:47 pm

salttee wrote:
wingman wrote:
Bush also lied when he declared to the world "Mission Accomplished".

Not really, he was so ignorant and uninformed that he had no idea that the Sunnis now had little choice but to evolve into religious fundamentalists and that the Shiias were going to invite the Americans to leave as soon as they had secured their military power. He simply had no idea that he had just handed Iraq to Iran's sphere of power thereby undermining genuine US policy goals in the ME.

So, at that time, he had no idea how badly he had screwed up.


Sunnis had a choice to be peaceful and respect the new Shia rule, which would have been reasonable considering that Shia's had lived long under Saddam's Sunni rule. But instead as usual they showed themselves to be much more violent and intolerant than Shia Muslims.

Frankly speaking being under Iran's sphere of influence is much better than being under the influence of KSA and USA.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:50 pm

salttee wrote:
tu204 wrote:
they have had more than enough time to work out and plan out pretty much any scenario, offensive and defensive.
That is a two way street. We can be sure that the ROK and American artillery, surface to surface weapons and air power have the coordinates of every potential NK target already waiting in the que with prioritization and real time update capability. Also keep in mind that NK has no offensive capability beyond what could be seen as vandalism.

tu204 wrote:
Yes, the DPRK's arsenal is obsolete, but it is huge and Seoul is not that far away
The ROK and American arsenal is also huge; however it is not obsolete, not in offensive, defensive, air, ground, sea or electronic warfare categories. The target set provided by NK is not that large and we have seen twice in Iraq what happens when third world military meets first world military.

The North Korean military threat is much ado about nothing. Their only option is a very localized Armageddon.


We have also seen in Iraq what happens when you get rid of a dictatorship without providing a real alternative. In case of North Korea things would be much, much worse after over half a century of extreme brainwashing. After that "vandalism" (which would probably kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of ROK citizens) was over you would still have a vast country prepared for long term guerrilla warfare. In any case it would be an enormous humanitarian disaster with huge costs in both lives and money.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:01 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
This is getting into semantics - but where is the proof that Bush did lie?


I don't think it's semantics at all. To many this is a self-evident truth. No evidence required apparently.

einsteinboricua wrote:
You would think that if this is the case it would be reported


You obviously don't read the news.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... apons.html

einsteinboricua wrote:
and would have validated the Iraq War


No- for the reasons I stated above it doesn't necessarily validate the Iraq War. At least not by itself, since it would have been largely impossible for the Iraqi government to clean up every remnant of WMDs left over from the Iran/Iraq war.

The claim "there were no WMDs" is clearly false. There were no active programs, but WMDs did exist, and Saddam was deliberately ambiguous about reporting them. He did as much as he could to hamper the efforts of the UN inspectors, and did everything possible to attempt to convince the world he had WMDs. Additionally, he retained both the capacity, and crucially the intent, to start producing WMDs again once the inspectors were gone.

Now again, one can argue about how much of a threat this actually was, and whether the Bush administration was too quick to accept intel which suggested active WMD programs existed, and too slow to accept intel which suggested the opposite, but claiming that the situation was as simple as "there were no WMDs" is incredibly crass and simplistic. Everybody should at least start by reading the Duelfer report beyond the headline "no active WMD programs were found". As always the devil is in the details.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
salttee
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: North Korea - How To Handle The Latest Nuclear Threat?

Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:46 pm

pvjin wrote:
We have also seen in Iraq what happens when you get rid of a dictatorship without providing a real alternative. In case of North Korea things would be much, much worse after over half a century of extreme brainwashing. After that "vandalism" (which would probably kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of ROK citizens) was over you would still have a vast country prepared for long term guerrilla warfare. In any case it would be an enormous humanitarian disaster with huge costs in both lives and money.

I was not at all suggesting that military action should be taken against NK. I was just pointing out that they are not a threat to anyone's existence. The problem posed by NK doesn't stem from the Kim family's sicko regime, it originates from China's policy to feed and nurture this abomination. China is abhorrent to the idea of sharing a border with (south) Korea.

North Korea would be pacified in short order if the Kim regime somehow dissolved, Korea is a country with one people, one language and one history. There are no divisive issues like religion in play there. But as China currently sees the world, they will not let Korea be unified.
"Good genes, very good genes, Ok, very smart, the Wharton School of finance, very good, very smart."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lesfalls and 3 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos