North Korea

[David Jamieson]

are you scare yet?

hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Merryprankster]

More likely the PRC is behind this

Highly unlikely. The PRC has even greater interest in a non-nuclear DPRK than we do. A nuclear DPRK is a regional, strategic player. Little flexibility in action, mind you, but a regional player nonetheless.

It's not the missles... (and they do have ICBM's last I checked, besides, the distance between the U.S. and North Korea via great circle route isn't very far, really)... It's the proliferation potential. A.Q. Khan is an amateur compared to the DPRK.

The military threat is totally overblown. Many people think our boy Kim Jong Il is a bit unpredictable and that the DPRK is erratic. Nothing could be further from the truth. He's crazy like a fox specifically because he recognizes his weak position.

Why develop a nuclear program? To get the big boys to play ball with you. It's not going to be a serious military option - it's going to be a bargaining chip at the negotiations table.

[Meat Shake]

Am I the only one that watches discovery channel here?
Our current missile defense systems are absolutely unbelievable. The only threats really are from attacks within the country. Not something comming from across seas on radar.

[Shaolinlueb]

doesnt korea have the 2nd/3rd biggest army in the world after china and russia? their troops look a lot more into fighting then the usa ones. plus they have a couple underground tunnels that could move troops into south korea quickly. crazy north koreans. im sure most of the people starving in that country would be welcoming a usa invasion.

[MonkeySlap Too]

China is engaged in economic reapptoachment with the West. However, traditional tactics show they are likely to use proxies, willing or not, such as N. Korea to distract us from the bigger issues.

The mentality of the politiburo is still very insular and cold war focused. Strategically, China and the U.S. can make good allies and trading partners, however, until China feels it is "no. 1" that probably can't happen.

North Korea is a perfect distraction for the U.S., and it keeps Korea split, and less of a rival in the region.

Talk to any mid-level bueracrat from the PRC. They think we are so funny in how we seem to miss the most obvious strategies...

Proliferation is also a huge factor... Kung Lek I give us less time...

[red5angel]

Last I heard they couldn't reach american soil, but that could change quickly and in the end it doesn't matter. We have more, and we have bigger.

So here's the plan -

Step One: We Nuke the fukk out of N. Korea. I know, sucks, innocent people get killed and there is some environmental damage.

Step Two: We point the finger at Iran and ask if they want to be next.

Step Three: Regardless of what happens to Iran, we point the finger at several countries in the middle east and we ask if they want a billion martyrs....

Step Four: We stop playing nice with the rest of the world, remind them we can destory the planet about 10 times over - even after nuking the hell out of Korea and possibly Iran - and then we see who get's in line. The rest we make conform to our ideas on what makes a solid society and eventually we end up with one big happy world community.

[mortal]

Finally someone is using some logic.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

It is rare that a species becomes completely at odds with its own kind, yet.. here we are... differing cultural mindsets that rationalize the deaths of thousands, millions, or even billions.. in favor of "ideals".. It appears true that the mind that creates the problem is incapable of solving it..

Step Four: We stop playing nice with the rest of the world, remind them we can destory the planet about 10 times over - even after nuking the hell out of Korea and possibly Iran - and then we see who get's in line. The rest we make conform to our ideas on what makes a solid society and eventually we end up with one big happy world community.

Dang, that sounds like every other dictator's plan.. a page from Hitler's playbook.. Yeah, "one big happy world community", oh.. and we'll tell you what "happy" is... and, just like Iraq, our enemies will become invisible, striking from hidden positions and terrorizing every moment.. a conquered and subjugated world will not long tolerate its "masters".. a history lesson.

Be well...

[Meat Shake]

There always has been terrorism and there always will be. Yin and Yang ideology... They may have the capacity to be more dangerous than ever before, but we also have the capabilities to remain as safe as ever.

[red5angel]

taichibob - no one has been in the position the US is in now. Hitler, didn't have the ability to destroy the world a few times over. He didn't have the ability to erase entire countries from existance.
As meatshake said, there will always be terrorist and there will always be resistance, but geting the world all on board one boat whether they like it or not would certainly make inroads to making those issues smaller, especially since all the worlds resources would finally be used to fight those types of people, instead of spread out, being used as trump cards and hold outs for more from someone else. Under Step Four, France couldn't denounce action against terrorism, or support it unless of course it's ok'd by the US - but why would it be, we'd own everything? Spain couldn't pull out when their most needed, nor Taiwan. Italy couldn't capitulate to terrorist threats. No, terrorism would have no where to hide, not for long. eventually they'd learn the price is too high to pay, you can fight for freedom all you want but once the people/religion/land your "fighting for" get's bathed in the holy nuclear fire, suddenly your ideals don't have a leg to stand on.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

No, terrorism would have no where to hide, not for long. eventually they'd learn the price is too high to pay, you can fight for freedom all you want but once the people/religion/land your "fighting for" get's bathed in the holy nuclear fire, suddenly your ideals don't have a leg to stand on.

Look at Iraq.. we really showed them, huh?.. we continue to lose lives daily with no real hope of ending it.. we have lost more in the occupation than in the "war".. so, as we crush the terrorists under the heel of Capitalist Supremacy, the terrorists simply blend in with everyone else.. now, who do you nuke? do you nuke terrorist cells in L.A., in Paris, etc..

You may subugate and even conquer terrorist's homelands, but you cannot kill and idea, a belief.. what you suggest is that our freedoms supercede everyone elses.. and i promise you this is the seed of greater conflict.. Basically, what you are suggesting is no different than any other dictator or power hungry despot.. you have become the bully you once despised.. and, i assure you that the conflicts will come from within.. No, your scenario makes "big brother" look like a sissy, it is an arrogance fed by the power to end life on this planet..

Suppose the Chinese develop an inpenetrable defense system, suppose they develop a weapon more powerful than any previously known.. then, they enforce world communism in the same manner they now practice it.. "One happy world family", right?.. not likely! you and i would resist, go underground, become terrorists, etc.. same shoe, different foot.. forced loyality is temporary, always....

Are we to become that which we have always fought against? "World Dominators"? Are we so right that we can extinguish innocent lives at will..?... yeah, destroy their homeland, degrade an already fragile ecology in favor of our own Imperial Capitalist Supremacy...

Be well..

[red5angel]

now, who do you nuke?

we haven't nuked anyone yet, and maybe that's the problem. There's a difference on many levels to sending troops in t pacify a region, and sending in nuclear weapons. See, with troops, you get localised damage, sure as the resistance, does what it does, you lose some of them, and some innocent bystanders along the way, but who really cares right? I own a small shop on the corner and either way the people that run this country will let me have it so I don't care.
But wait a minute, suddenly we're not talking just a few innocent bystanders, we're talking all of Iraq and then some. Suddenly the responsibility changes, the scope changes. Suddenly my life is definitely at risk, along with the lives of all my loved ones and everyone else out there. Maybe if I just quietly point out the safe houses and training camps, then I won't have to worry about it?

but you cannot kill and idea, a belief

I'd be interested to find out the beliefs of the native Japanese and the Japanese government before and after Horishima.....

then, they enforce world communism in the same manner they now practice it

so what? Then they are doing the same thing I am proposing, just with a different system. Does it matter? Does a dictatorship sound so bad, really? Especially when it encompasses the entirety of humanity? In every society we have to sacrifice some to live, that's just nature and human nature. We have to give up some freedoms and some would claim that even in the most free society that exists today, we don't have freedom. So who cares if we have to establish a dictatorship? Who really cares if some people are made to get in line. Down the road you get one people, all of us americans, or chinese, or whatever. If we have the power to do it then I say let's get some ballz and do it.

Are we so right that we can extinguish innocent lives at will..?...

what's right? What's wrong? How many lives is it acceptable to take, so you can stop the taking of lives. If today you were shown irrefutable and undoubtable proof that if you killed a certain type of person in society, that peace would reign on earth for a thousand years, where is right or wrong?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
I've gone beyond a narrow minded view of what should be and challeneged myself by looking at other cultures and ways of doing things.

*sigh*

[Merryprankster]

"willing or not,"

A true proxy must be willing. If they are not willing, they are not a proxy - they can serve as a distraction, and in that sense I agree with you. But they are not a proxy by any means, nor would I believe that the PRC helping the DPRK along. I'd need some serious evidence of this since, as I said, the PRC has a vested interest in NOT having a nuclear DPRK.

Talk to any mid-level bueracrat from the PRC. They think we are so funny in how we seem to miss the most obvious strategies...

There's only one thing worse than thinking somebody is always out to get you..., and that's being ignored. My point is that some of these "obvious strategies," are things we may not care about. Perhaps we don't believe it will be a factor. Perhaps we have already taken steps to neutralize said strategies. Perhaps such strategies are 30 years behind and playing catch up and it's not a big deal yet. Quite frankly, the Chinese have always tried to pretend that things are not as they are, as though the phrasing of a concept lends it reality - "Two systems, one China?" In name only.

Anyway, my points were very narrow:

1. The PRC is unlikely to be behind nuclearization of the DPRK.

2. The DPRK does not act erratically.

3. DPRK won't be using nuclear weapons and don't represent a truly bigger threat because of them. They will just use them and the program as bargaining chips at the table. Threat =intention + capability. If the intention is zero, then the capability doesn't matter - just don't **** them off - which is exactly why they get used as a bargaining chip and not a weapon.

[red5angel]

*sigh*

thanks for underscoring my point from another thread, on this one. not only have I bothered to go beyond the general consensus on this topic, I've determined that there are serious flaws in the way those who think peace will solve things, think. Peace was where we were before WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.... Peace was where we were before Sept. 11th 2001.
The only way to truly attain peace is for everyone to agree. The only way to make everyone agree is through superior force. Force, solves everything faster then just about anything else. Talking doesn't work, look at the UN, useless, dead weight. how do you make peace with someone who is not interested in living in the same world with you, as you are now?