What are the chances?

[ewallace]

Okay, I know there have been a lot of political threads lately. I do not want this one to turn into another US and it's Evil Empire thread.

What do you all think the chances are of North Korea launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike at the United States? NK, from what I have gathered, is really threatening to go to war with the US, the latest being that if sanctions are imposed upon them, that will mean war. This is starting to make me more than a little nervous.

[txwingchun]

Would they start a war with us? I think they might, but a nuclear exchange I don't think so. If they lauch at us we'll launch right back at them and they won't have much of a country left if we do. So unless they willing to sacrafice alot of thier people and thier country I don't see them sending any nukes.

[Souljah]

i think they are (ready to sacrifice alot of their people)

[red5angel]

Conventional war yes, if they begin to loose, nuclear attack maybe. I don't think there are many people out there who have the guts or the insanity to use them really. Something small on the battlefield maybe but I can't see a large weapon hitting civilian targets.
Besides do they have the capability of hitting us? If they don't I don't see us letting them anytime soon.

I saw the news this morning and heard that statement as well. I think they are just puffing up. Trying to get us to back down.

[ZIM]

None, happy to say- at least from what angle you're writing.

The NKs do not have long range missles capable of getting thru to us [and neither does China, BTW]. If you're asking "would they use a nuke or dirty bomb against a US target over there?", then its a little more realistic.

Still not bloody likely. They want security and assurances that we won't attack them, so they probly wont start a war as long as WE don't press for one. If/when we do, they'll do a pre-emptive strike if history holds true- but mostly a regional one.

[Sho]

There's much restlessness going on in the world at the moment and therefore we must hope that the people in charge would make the correct decisions to eliminate possibilities leading to suffering.

The result would be disastrous for both countries if nuclear warfare would be declared. The whole world would suffer and it's certain that the Koreans are equally aware of the aftermath that would result.

[MonkeySlap Too]

I think they are trying to blackmail the West into propping up thier f@cked-up staliniust regime, which can't even produce enough toilet paper for it's citizens.

The threat of a nuclear strike can be very disconcerting.

However, I think this behavior has been noted, and not even the PRC allies of North Korea will allow this to go to far, because it could have horrible incidental repercussions there as well. Although I would not put it behind the PRC to use this as a diversion to grab Taiwan or the Spratleys. Unlikely, though.

The problem with the DPRK, is these guys are so insular, they are screwy. They must just sacrifice thier country to to show us 'whats what'.

Be concerned.

[Nevermind]

I think they know that if they launch anything at us it would be suicide. We have way more nuclear arsenal and like someone said they wouldn't have much of a country left. Really nothing for them to gain by launching nukes at us. They would have a lot to loose though. I really can't see any country launching nukes at another country that also has nuclear weapons. Who's going to be insane enough to launch first? Especially knowing they are going to have some coming right back at them. Like I said, its suicide.

[yenhoi]

What do you all think the chances are of North Korea launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike at the United States? NK, from what I have gathered, is really threatening to go to war with the US, the latest being that if sanctions are imposed upon them, that will mean war. This is starting to make me more than a little nervous.

Lol. North Korea is doing what North Korea does best, at the best time, just when they were prompted to.

There is a possibility, but it is just so sleight, I just breathed it.

North Korea is not acting spontaneously. They are not blindsiding the United States, the rest of the West, or even any-other government in the world. Only the people in western countries with very good and constant access to sensationalized media are worried or concerned. Not to mention sharp critics who use this sort of thing to get a soap box, and stir up the **** when it comes to those worried western media bound peoples.


So dont get nervous eulerfan, North Korea is just making the noise it is suppose to be making.

[MightyB]

This thing with the Koreans is nothing more than extortion, or an attempt at extortion by the North Koreans. Besides, it's not the US that should be worried, Japan is well within their range. And, if we give in now, what next? Every time NK has a bug up their arse, they'll scream about how they have nukes and they ain't afraid of using them.

This isn't as much a problem as people think. It is true that if we were to fight conventionally in Korea, we'd have problems-- in the beginning. We only got about 25k US forces stationed there. When the reinforcements hit, NK ceases to exist.

I don't think that it'd get that far because China has too much to gain by courting the US. Right now China stands to become an economic and industrial power house and any instability in the region jeopardizes that. IMHO If the N. Koreans don't shut the F@ck up on their own, I think there will be a billion screaming Chinese telling them to do so the hard way.

[Stranger]

Zim,

Fact, North Korea does have missiles that can reach the US.

By 2006 the North Koreans have claimed they will be able to extend this range to reach as far as Chicago. Empty threat or fact? I don't know.

*******************************************

I don't know if they would use it, but a) they have a historical record of unprovoked military aggression (against SK and the US Army) and b) they are hardline Communists of the order of Stalin (a hero in NK), c) they are insular (thus difficult to approach through intermediaries), and d) they are willing to accept huge losses to their own population. These facts have the world on edge. I don't know if they will strike, but they been using the threat that they might to blackmail the US into supplying fossil fuels, food, and other aid.

[red5angel]

I say they keep threatening and we do something about it. We nuke the ****ers to kingdom come and let's see who else wnats to threaten nuclear war after that.....








hehe mostly I just wanted to sound like a bad ass so I could use my censor evading techniques just recently gained....LONG LIVE COMMUNISM!!!!!......

[Water Dragon]

The North koreans have the capability of hitting the West Coast (Cali, Az, Washington State). I think they might nuke. They are banking on the U.S. not nuking back due to the proximity of South Korea, and China. I think they are also banking on both China and the Rogue states coming together.

Any History majors out there? Have you been watching this since 9/11/2001? Have you seen the similarities to the first 2 big ones as well?

[Ford Prefect]

This just a bluff in order to attain economic aid and a non-aggression pact with the US. NK does not want war. They want to negotiate. That is why it is being handled like it is. We can't bow to their needs because of this bluff because it will just give incentive for other struggling nations to announce that they have WMD programs in order to get aid.

[ZIM]

Any History majors out there? Have you been watching this since 9/11/2001? Have you seen the similarities to the first 2 big ones as well?

No longer a history major...studied lots about WW's. Yes on the similarities, but NK is not fully part of the scenario, as of yet, IMHO. Consider if the US decided to gain a new ally in the middle east region, say a formalized aggreement with Russia or with India [who would we p1ss off or scare? why?]. That is a possible way of what might begin to touch it off. There's others.

stranger- not ignoring your post. The operative words I was thinking were "capable of getting thru", but not in the sense of distance, but that of technology. Sure, they could reach [just as China's could] but neither country has been keeping up with electronic warfare to the extent that the US and NATO have, IMHO.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by ZIM

Consider if the US decided to gain a new ally in the middle east region,


Why do you think we're going after Iraq? After we re-build the country, give all the men jobs and make all the kiddies fat you don't think they're going to love us? The Afghanis are loving us right about now. And after Iraq, Iran is next door and will go our way as soon as the old guard dies off. We may just help them quicken that up a bit. Once we get Iraq, I'll betcha we're not quite so nice to the Saudi's anymore; we wont need them.

[Stranger]

I think if Israel is drawn into any conflict as a result of the "war on terrorism" things can get out of hand in the ME real quickly. The fact that Israeli commandoes are currently operating in Western Iraq and Syria might indicate it (another WW) has begun already. It is scary because Saddam's greatest potential to cause destruction is the use of a tactic he has already demostrated comfort with. He only has to connect with a couple of SCUDS to Israel, Israel WILL respond this time, and then the insanity will begin.

NK is too isolated to draw in any support. The PRC will NOT send soldiers to aid NK this time around. The old ties are just not there.

Zim,

Thanks for the response. I misread your post, all apologies. I honestly don't know what the exact capability of NK missiles to evade our missile defense is, but I do know that the Pentagon had a press conference within the last 2 months wherein they confessed that they had difficulty hitting missiles out of the sky at any great range although their success rate inclose has improved vastly but hitting one in close may not help when dealing with nuclear warhead.

[ZIM]

With the usual caveat that WW's are mightily complex and not to be briefly dealt with on a Kung Fu forum? But of course....

Yes, WW's are all different things...the only real definition is that the war involves at least both hemispheres, and usually all continents. By this definitiion, the Napoleonic wars were WWI, so we're actually on IV. :D

Israel absolutely has the tendency to attack first....and no one is really sure if they've got nukes or not. In a sense, us being in their neighborhood keeps them in line. [I hope, anyway]

Stranger- well, hey- it's not like I work for the DoD, just going by military exp., news shows, some disinterested reading, lots of history. I was briefly checking out the Federation of American Scientists site- www.fas.org/index.html They've got quite a bit on specs, if you like that sort of thing.

WD- no. Thats the green card ploy. :D

I still say the chances are low for a US attack. Better for a regional blast- and IMHO any blast anywhere is likely to be high-air burst, not ground.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by red5angel
I say they keep threatening and we do something about it. We nuke the ****ers to kingdom come and let's see who else wnats to threaten nuclear war after that.....

hehe mostly I just wanted to sound like a bad ass so I could use my censor evading techniques just recently gained....LONG LIVE COMMUNISM!!!!!......

Well, you ****ed that up then, didn't you! ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by ZIM

Israel absolutely has the tendency to attack first....and no one is really sure if they've got nukes or not.

Israel has nukes, I think 200 at the last count. Courtesy of the USA.
Special status or excemption from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) arranged by the USA.

According to yesterdays newspaper( artcile from Fiji press):

Some US official said that the US will not stand in the way if South Korea and Japan want to have their own nuclear weapons.

It would work well for the USA if Japan had nukes as at the moment their constituion forbids any nukes on japanese soil and thus US Ships carrying can't visit Japanese harbors.

The guy even went so far to say that unless South Korea and japan have nukes they cannot count on any help in case of being attacked from the USA or protection from their missile shield.

South Korea and japan having nukes would create a balance with North Korea.

As the Guy said:
"North Korean nukes are the USA's nightmare, Japan with nukes is China's nightmare.
It is time to spread the nightmares."

Personally, I think it is unlikely that NK will attack the USA in any way.

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by Water Dragon


Why do you think we're going after Iraq? After we re-build the country, give all the men jobs and make all the kiddies fat you don't think they're going to love us? The Afghanis are loving us right about now. And after Iraq, Iran is next door and will go our way as soon as the old guard dies off. We may just help them quicken that up a bit. Once we get Iraq, I'll betcha we're not quite so nice to the Saudi's anymore; we wont need them.

They will continue to hate us as passionately as ever. I'm sleptical about the Afghani affectoin as well. Iran will 'go our way' only if either it is entirely depopulated or Israel is removed from teh map. You have vastly underestimated the depth of religious conflict in the region.

Zim,
I don't think the US has any potential allies in the mideast.

I've been following this since 1998 when Ben Laden bombed our embassies in Africa. My Bosnian acquaintances, even back then were telling me that sooner or later the US would have to put troops east of the black sea. West north and south are fairly well protected. They told me Afghanistan was a distinct possibility. For me 9-11 was more of a confirmation than a surprise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

China picking up rogue states? Like who?

Someone also made a comment about China potentialy taking advantage of a Korean conflict to snatch up Taiwan? This is weird as it is very difficult to make a case for Taiwan independance on historical grounds. There's the matter of saving US face and protecting investment dollars but Taiwan is regarded by the Chinese as part of China. Not as 'should be part of China' but AS A CURRENT PART OF CHINA. A brief review of the Chiang Kai Shek's brief reign should confirm that they have every reason to believe this.

to review:
Western powers around the turn of the century used military force to support the sales of Opium in China and succeded in destroying the remnants of the last imperial dynasty.

When the country fell apart, Japan took possesion of Manchuria and the last emperor, Pu Yi was installed as the sovereign.

The US, as is it's custom, tried to take advantage of teh disorder by supporting a leader they thoght would be friendly to us, Chiang Kai Shek and the Guo Min Dang.

It backfired. Mao Zedong successfully let Chang Kaishek and the Guomindang become associated with the imperialist powers which were largely responsibly for the destruction of old China. It helpoed that the Guo Mindang were suppotive of the Japanes invasion of Manchuria.

As Mao's power increased he eventually set about the business of a: consolidating the country and b: chasing down Chang Kaishek. Chang kept running away. He fled south to the mountains. He got found. He ran. Repeat. Fast forward ---> Chang has fled all the way south to an island which was then considered by everyone to be part of China--- Taiwan.

Mao, being a pragmatist, stops chasing. He's got Chang trapped on an Island, hasn't got a navy and is more concerned with creating a new government than dealing with this now inconsequential Chang Kaishek.

The US stupidly tries to pretend that a man who fled for his life to this little island is actually the representative of China. We made promises and treaties and there's the cold war and Taiwan is usefull strategically against RED China.

From any ethical, historical, logical point of view, Taiwan is China.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weird thing to me is that the first sign I had that the North Koreans could be a threat to US security was from a James Bond movie I rented a few weeks ago.

[Merryprankster]

No, they won't launch.

No similarity of any sort to WW's, IMO. Completely unrelated in motives and structure.

[Water Dragon]

MP,
Not really unrelated. You have 2 distinct sides. (Basically pro or con Israel. You have dreams of Empire. (Both Hussein and Bin Laden would like a united Middle East. Think of the power they could wield.) You have all the continents represented already except for Australia and South America. And now, the Koreans are up to something, I'm not sure what.

Omar, I don't think they'll hate us. Apparently, U.S. policy after WWII is to build a country up and make it's people wealthy and fat. This is after we dominate it and put in a Gov't we like of course. Look at the German's and Japanese. I think we will do that in the Middle East as well.

[red5angel]

I don't think Korea is going to be nuking anyone personally. It would help to keep the balance of power if N. Koreas enemies had them as well but nuking anyone in this day and age is asking for big big trouble.
Look at it this way, if Korea Nukes, say Japan, what do you think the affects are going to be? My bet is the UN unanimously votes to 'police' N. Korea and destroy any nuclear arsenal they have afterwards, too late too little of course, or something there abouts.
It's hard to enforce a no nuking policy on the big guys, say us, india, china. But a small power like Korea? Not going to happen and they know that.

On afghanistan, ok for those of you who want to doubt america has done something good or the afghanis have not benefited, you need to look real close at how life has changed for them. Life sucked there way before we got there and the fact life is getting better in atleast part of that country means that life is getting better in general period. Whether all afghanis like the US or not, it doesn't really matter, some people will always be angry and will always need someone to turn that anger on. There is no doubt in my mind there are quite afew thankful afghanis in afghanistan....

[yenhoi]

Spin. Spin. Spin. Commercially driven western media companies. Spin. Spin. Spin.

:D

North Korea is upto the same ole same ole.

Water Dragon, you are correct on your dreams of Empire. Saddam has 0 chance of pulling it off, and a -14% chance of doing it after January 27th.

Bin Laden has a better hand of cards, but is probably stuck so deep in a hole somewhere that he cant read them anymore.

I agree with MP on your drawing connections to the "World Wars" from last century. The world dynamics of today have very little in line with the world dynamics of 90 years ago.

[Merryprankster]

Actually, for what it's worth, South America and Australia are both represented already. There is a strong Islamic extremist presence in the triborder area of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, down by Foz do Iguacu, that LE agents of all three countries have been trying to corral since at least 1999. Australians were the primary westerners killed in the Bali bombings. "Westerners," are the targets, really. U.S. and U.K. types and Israelis are just preferred.

Identify a side. You can't, really. There is a concept of "The west," against "Islam," perhaps, but the issue isn't so simple. UBL and other fundamentalists are just as annoyed with Turkey, Iraq (Iraq talks a good game, but, as I recall, the Ba'ath Party is christian, and so is Saddam. You'll note he speaks in terms of pan-arabism more than pan-Islamism) Oman, Egypt, Jordan, Singapore, and other nations with a strong Muslim presence because they are seen as over-western and not "Muslim enough."

There is just as much dissention within the "Islam side," as there is with the "West," side. Perhaps even more so because, whereas the "West" shares the same basic set of cultural values: importance of the individual, emphasis on personal freedom, representative government, etc, the same cannot be said of Muslim nations. Some are monarchies. Others are representative democracies, some are dictatorships. Because of this wide disparity, they really don't even have the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," thing going on, because they can't really agree on the enemy. Sure, many don't like the U.S., but can you imagine Turkey, or Indonesia--representative democracies, allying against other representative democracies in the name of a strict interpretation of Islamic socio-political frameworks? I don't. Not until they all start from a truly common day to day cultural context. And it hasn't happenned. A middle eastern arab christian shares more in common with a middle eastern arab muslim than two average muslims (not radicals), one from Mindanao and the other from Jordan. Vastly different world views.

The truth is that hunting loosely organized, cellular, NGO's is more like an LE activity than a war, and the "axis of evil," is so ideologically diverse that they have no hope of forming a useful alliance of any sort.

Finally, North Korea is just being North Korea. People like to think they're nuts, but they want you to think they're nuts. It's just a funny little game of brinkmanship to show "You're not the boss of me." No big deal.

[red5angel]

Yenhoi, while I can agree that alot of it may be spin, when was the last time N. Korea threatened to turn on their reactors again?

Bin Ladens cards are all used up. He is a rat on the run now. money is gone, supplies are gone, people are scattered. he isn't the threat of the future......

[yenhoi]

Red5: 1994 off the top of my head. Im sure several other times before the Clinton Administration left office the Koreans made many under the table non-official threats concerning their nuclear programs, weapons, intents, etc.

Bin Laden the institution has not played all of its cards.

money is gone, supplies are gone, people are scattered. he isn't the threat of the future......

currently: wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Since I am a ass, you make a good point, the United States and its buddies have made significant progress to battle the bin laden structure etc in the last couple years.

:D

:eek:

[red5angel]

1994 was almost 9 years ago, not what I would call "all the time". In the past they have openly discussed it, but this time it carries more weight because instead of talking about a possibilty, they are saying they will do it. So far I haven't seen any contingency offered for not activating their nuclear program as they have in the past.

Those statements about Bin Laden aren't absolute, of course he has some money and of course he has some people. But in general his network has been pretty stirred up and now he has the world community watching out for him. That makes doing anything extremely hard to do. If you need proof just look at what has happened since 9/11.;)

[yenhoi]

Firstly, we (the public) dont know what was planned after 9/11, there is only one way to tell that we are having an effect, and that is nothing of the sept 11 scale has happened since. "Terrorist attacks" have been happening and have been "connected" to bin ladens network nearly every week since 9/11. Actually, just listen to Al Gore when he talks about "The War on Terrorism" - he will use all the same striking points I just listed plus more, etc, etc. You are correct to a large degree, but there is no ruler yet created to measure what we are talking about. Not to mention we are still desperatly hunting active groups all over the globe, and making only small gains.

'Bin Laden' has only been made less lethal, not non-lethal.

Not to be a complete *******, but you need to read up more on North Korea! First of all - this is not sudden. This current 'crisis' with North Korea did not just jump in our lap, infact it was waiting patiently on a shelf for our attention - and then 'WE' decided it was time to mess around with this particular deal. I cant go into every detail right now, but since I mentioned 1994 - I was mentioning an agreement NK and the rest of us went into, an agreement that not only NK has been ignoring for some years, but so have all the other freaks that signed it. From a North Korean standpoint, they are getting the short end of the stick, and should be ****ed off about it, and should give the shaft and talk nasty publiclly and privately to the western world.

My argument doesnt make NK any less evil, or communist, or tyranical, or starving its own people, but all that hipe aside, this is not the huge, apprehension causing event the media would make you think it is.

[red5angel]

Yenhoi, right, the level of terror attacks after 9/11 returned to normal, and less were associated with bin ladens network then before 9/11. You will have to trust me on that little piece of information.

I can agree though on less lethal. A slong as he is alive he will only ever be less lethal.

I know what you are talking about to be on the same page with N.K, I just don't agree, I think that what is going on is backlash for what you pointed out as their "right" to get ****ed off because of the agreement not being followed through as thoroughly as it is supposed to have been. I can also agree that it doesn't in anyway make them evil, communist or not ;)
However, you don't go telling the most powerful nation on the face of this planet that you are not going to honor your agreement with them any longer, and you don't threaten them with war unless you mean business. It's like throwing a tantrum in front of the biggest bully on the block to try to get him to not take your lunch money, he is probably going ot take your lunch money anyway and toss in an ass whuppin to boot.

[yenhoi]

I will not agree with you, because you are wrong. First, there is no such thing as a 'level of terrorist attacks.' If there was, then it would be UP UP UP, because we have started paying more attention to them to start with, and also since 9/11, "its on."

and less were associated with bin ladens network then before 9/11

Not true. More have been "associated" no matter how loose the connection. If anything, just because "we" are now paying attention means "terrorism" is up. Not to mention the actual activity of "terrorists" around the world, anti-us or not anti-us, basque or islamic, has increased, despite our meddling. You are correct, we have taken a big bite out of international crime so-to-speak, now we need to goto the toliet and take a huge ****.

Bin laden's network (if it is really his anymore...) does not need bin laden the man to be alive to function or be lethal. I hope you are completly correct, unfortunatly, I think I am.

you don't threaten them with war unless you mean business

Sure you do, thats how you conduct buisness if you are in the same position NK is in. Leaders in Iran threaten the United States every day, it means nothing to us (now.)

you don't go telling the most powerful nation on the face of this planet that you are not going to honor your agreement with them any longer,

Sure you do, happens everyday, its common international conduct.

It's like throwing a tantrum in front of the biggest bully on the block to try to get him to not take your lunch money, he is probably going ot take your lunch money anyway and toss in an ass whuppin to boot.

Well, probably not. History, specially Korean-American history, suggests otherwise. Can we kick their ass, sure - will we? Probably not anytime soon (depending on what soon is to you.) North Korea is on the Bush Administrations hit list, calling NK out (now even) is part of moving our 'National Security Agenda' along. The 1994 agreement was part of the Clinton Administrations policy of sweeping things under the rug for the next guy to deal with in a decade or so (along with shooting some cruise missles at bin laden, sweeping **** under the rug.) North Korea was given the bait by Japan and S. Korea, and then we came along and smoked them out of their hole.

Not to mention, this is exactly how smaller nations have been getting attention for the last 60 years or so. The lack of a Berlin wall has changed little concerning this type of conduct.

Where is the crisis? Who-ever (pun intended) over in China is probably sweating a little, just a little, but will come out of it like always. India is probably ****ting their pants, talking the ear off of ole Mr Powell for some action, etc, etc. This is not a crisis, a surprise, or anything less then buisness as usual for the awakened American Empire.

[red5angel]

"I will not agree with you, because you are wrong"

I love you man, you gotta know that. Not in a hot an sweaty, hairy sort of love, just a pat on the bottom good job sort of I love you.

"First, there is no such thing as a 'level of terrorist attacks.' If there was"

I am not sure what you mean by that but when I was in the service we had threat levels and attack levels. Certain organizations had a threat rating that represented how often and how capable they were of doing damage.
An attack like 9/11 is on a scale never before seen by terrorist an dthat means it's level is higher then your average bomb in a car shoot up a strip mall attack. It might not be pretty to quantify the loss of human life but you have to in some way. Since 9/11 the attacks carried out have been 'normal', not seen on a scale of the 9/11 attacks.

"More have been "associated" no matter how loose the connection."

As you say spin spin spin. the associations you may here over the radio or on tv are hearsay by the media from government sources who aren't always in the know and some who are. It's easier to have an enemy if you can put a face on it and it makes the american public more secure to know, then to not know. It's not important to those fighting terrorism or not how the general pulic sees it, as long as they see it as bad.

Terrorism is not "up" so much as it might be more recognized by the general public. Until 9/11 you never heard anything about foiled terrorist plots, or raised security levels, as a civilian.

As for bin laden and his network, probably not but organizations like that tend to fragment into smaller less capable units. It takes a strong and charismatic man to hold an organization like that together. Usually after the death of one such as himself, infighting and power struggles tend to tear the organization apart unless it has a good infrastructure, Al Quaeda, while large, does not have a good infrastructure.

"Sure you do, happens everyday, its common international conduct."

I disagree.

On N.Korea, I wouldn't call it a crisis either actually, just something we need to be careful with.


By the way I started training for my schools 10 round club this week!

[yenhoi]

Spin. :cool:

Of course I am speaking entirely on behalf of 'the public.' Hah. :D
Im not a part of the government (school doesnt count?) or the military (anymore.)

Bin ladens organization before 9/11 was chuck full of elites at the higher and mid levels. Still is. I dout 9/11 took the bin laden leadership by surprize, they are not in emergency plan z right now. I havent mentioned "the force" on purpose. The bin laden institution has survived the afghanistan onslaught.

does not have a good infrastructure

I think otherwise, so does the US government, and so do most intelligence agencys, at least I think thats what they think. At least they are acting like I think they are thinking.

:eek: :confused: :eek:

Public opinion is everything at this point (at every point as long as we call it "terrorism") in the "war on terrorism" or 'terrorism's war on us.' From this vantage, they are winning - horribly.

Whats the current Homeland Security Level? Some color that stands for elevated I suspect. Not a real measure of "terrorism" being up or down - the only true measure is dead bodies and how much coverage the media gives 'them.'


What the hell is a 10 round club? Sparr for 10 rounds?

[red5angel]

2 things about Al Quaeda, what you call elite isn't necessarily that, it's a word that could be misconstrued very easily.

What is it that tells you the US govenrment believes AQ has a good infrastructure? They knew they weren't going to break up the whole party when they went in, they just wanted to make it harder for the bad guys to find a place to relax.

As for public opinion, they may be winning, but in a war on terrorism what does that mean? Body counts? We have destroyed quite a few resources and are going after even more. Our govenrment is better at doing this sort of thing then we are necessarily led to believe.

As for homeland security and all that, again, public spin, and I don't buy much into public spin.

Let me just throw in here that while I was in the military, I learned some things about anti-terrorism and how it all works I never would have guessed otherwise. My experience of course was on the basic level, mostly toe-to-toe, but we were briefed and debriefed more times then a ***** in a football teams locker room. It was some cool stuff but alot of it would be hard to explain to the general public....

I thought I was talking to you about muy thai rounds at one point. Anyway, The school I am now attending hase three different "clubs" the 5 round, 10 round and hour club, or somehting like that. Something to shoot for with the usually 3 minute Thai rounds.

[The Willow Sword]

What do you all think the chances are of North Korea launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike at the United States? NK, from what I have gathered, is really threatening to go to war with the US, the latest being that if sanctions are imposed upon them, that will mean war. This is starting to make me more than a little nervous


North Korea is rather upset that Our president has put them on the "axis of evil" list. they broke the deal to not reactivate their nuclear for the soul reason that they are afraid that the USA will turn its attack plan on North Korea after it finishes with Iraq.

This is a CLEAR message from Noth Korea that ww3 will be eminent if the US decides to do such action and i HOPE AND PRAY that the idiots on capitol hill GET the message and NOT intimidate North Korea any further. we cannot afford to go to war with them.
They will not attack first,,and they do not want war but they will not be subjugated by our bully tactics as we have been doing in Iraq.

[Merryprankster]

Willow, you're kidding right? You actually think we'd go into North Korea?

Not intimidate North Korea any further? Get real. NK is a third rate nation with a fourth rate government and a fifth rate economic infrastructure. Everything NK does is BECAUSE it's intimidated. It's like a teenager rebelling against authority--it might do something rash, but in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter much. They aren't going to launch. Please. Communist dictators aren't insane.

[David Jamieson]

North Korea is not in a position to produce enough weapons grade plutonium with their ridiculous and primitive nuclear reactors.

they are the proverbial flea shouting into the bullhorn.

It is laughable to think that they are currently a threat to anyone but themselves.

what they do want and need is help to build their country so they have less starvation and general social woe.

The nuclear gambit is the quickest way to get anyone to sit up and take notice of their situation.

as for the US being an evil empire? I think Not. The US has proven again and again that they are a World leader in the propogation of peace.

Now, the bush administration and maybe the actions of a few other administrations can be held in question, but name a country who hasn't had a few whack leaders in there day.

the paint brush that is the modern media stirs up more BS than anything these days.

Marshall McLuhan was right, The Medium IS the message.

cheers

[ZIM]

Israel has nukes, I think 200 at the last count. Courtesy of the USA.

Nope, not from the USA. Not at least according to the media, the governemnt sources, or the scientific community. The estimate may be correct, but they made them themselves. try this. (http://www.fas.org/news/israel/000505-israel1.htm)

"If Israel declares it has nuclear weapons, then
by U-S law, we automatically have to impose
military and economic sanctions on them. So to
a large degree, Israel is walking a line of not
confirming and not denying so that they don't
draw automatic U-S repercussions. It's like
Taiwan not declaring independence against China
even though technically they pretty much are."

and this too. (http://www.rense.com/general26/historw.htm)

"By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated."

Other fun declassified things! (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_jan_2003.htm):cool:
And a click chart for the curious. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/index.html) ;)

[Laughing Cow]

ZIM.

Here is a link that has quiet a bit of info on their nuclear capabilities:

Israel & Nukes (http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book74i.htm)

Looks like it is pretty much established that they got them. I am sure that the US-Goverment has more accurate data on it.

The " Courtesy of the USA" means that the USA is aware of them and so far has done nothing about them and thus kinda giving an "ok" to them.

The USA also knows that if Israel looses them the Arab nations will be more likely to attack Israel.
One of the reasons why the USA also gives them a lot of weapons, tanks and air-capability.

Israel without the backing/support from the USA might have to resort to using nukes to protect themselves.

Cheers.

[ZIM]

The " Courtesy of the USA" means that the USA is aware of them and so far has done nothing about them and thus kinda giving an "ok" to them.

Agreed.

Currently looking at the NATO site. http://www.nato.int/ Some things of interest there, if you're curious? :)

one great article:
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2002/issue4/english/art1.html

Quote:"If there is a problem of US unilateralism, it is not so much that US policy is over-militarised as that it is insufficiently ambitious" YEAH!!!

on edit: will look at your link! thx!! on editx2: Good Link!