Countdown: Pyongyang six days to launch

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_starinvestor, Apr 2, 2009.

  1. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
  2. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    The article identified the gravamen precisely.

    The launch will propel North Korea's missile technology immeasurably, by refining their know how in the use of solid fuel, and, of course, fine tuning their guidance and control technology


    the article also correctly points out the Pyongyang is in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1718 (2006) http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/572/07/PDF/N0657207.pdf?OpenElement

    that North Korea has successfully employed a strategy of extracting concessions from the rest of the world, reneged on its obligations, then pursued further development, highlights the inadequacy of diplomacy in dealing with this regime

    given this consistent pattern, the only rational response to North Korea's latest venture is to shoot its missile, after launch, which our Aegis system is fully capable of doing

    but, ah! we have Obama in office, who has run on a platform of diplomacy ...

    the only logical conclusion -- the Obama Presidency will only serve to make to make the world less stable and unsafe

     
    #2 B_Nick4444, Apr 3, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2009
  3. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    OH wow how did we miss this? I mean Bush named them the Axis of Evil in 2002. Seven years later and the world's last superpower is deep in debt and already fighting two wars and can ill afford to start another one. Wars cost money and the US has none. Alas it appears the neo dumbfucks did indeed attack the WRONG country. Opps.



     
    #3 sargon20, Apr 3, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2009
  4. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    They said pretty much the same thing in 2006. Interesting article actually.

    Of course it may chafe the likes of Nick4444, and other political neaderthals who'd likely fail to see any irony in citing UNSC resolution 1718, which expressly excludes automatic enforcement through military means.

    They'd rather blame Obama ... :rolleyes:
     
  5. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    It was the Axis of Evil speech that did it. Once Kim & Co. saw that the Bush admin wasn't going to play ball they decided the only way not to get invaded was to have nuclear weapons. Iran did the same thing and Saddam would have if he could have.

    Bush didn't realize that his words carried the consequences they did.
     
  6. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis

    Oh exactly. Once you join the nuclear club you're in the club. No one attacks the other once you have it. So put the pedal to the floor and get it. The chance you might actually die yourself if you attack the other has forced leaders to actually think before they start a war. But the neos operate in a complete vacuum where actions have no consequences. The disposal of Sadaam was worth it as long as you ignore the consequences.

    "Wars invariably produce unintended consequences: "War's essential nature is fixed, permanent, intractable, and irrepressible. War's constant companions are uncertainty and risk." "The statesman who yields to war fever is no longer the master of policy, but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
     
    #6 sargon20, Apr 3, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2009
  7. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    We must engage North Korea in bilateral talks. As the article correctly points out, if we do nothing then Japan will feel compelled to leave its defense-only posture and develop nuclear weapons. Japan has all the technology to do it. All they have to do is pull out the plans and start the process.

    If Japan does that then alarms will go off in South Korea, who will dramatically change their posture (cordial if slightly chilly) toward Japan and likely start building nukes of their own. Of course that will spur China and Russia to take note. China will then actively work to support North Korea while Russia will begin fortifying the western border. Lucky boy Bush will be able to sleep peacefully in his hay mow self-assured that he did what was right no matter the consequences.
     
  8. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | North Korea 'has launched rocket'

    ".The rocket lifted off shortly after 11:30 a.m. local time from a military site in a rural area called Musudan-ri, near the town of Hwadae, on the country's northeast coast, then arced over the Sea of Japan and Pacific Ocean. ...

    ...The rocket is the newest step in a program of advanced-weapons development that North Korea's authoritarian government uses to maintain power and force payments from other countries....


    .. For the United States, the launch presents the new administration of President Barack Obama with its first test of whether it can rally the international community to punish a rogue regime. ..."


    I guess it's official: Iran, the PRC, the Russian Federation, Pakistan, Noth Korea, et al, have seen Obama's mettle tested, have his seen his failure to respond, and so, see him as severely lacking ...
     
  9. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Yeah, I just saw that come over on a news wire.

    I really want to see what Japan and the U.S. do in response.
     
  10. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    546
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    Nothing, nada, zip.

    What can they do but posture some more and spout even more rhetoric about rogue states.
     
  11. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    North Korea launches rocket over Japan - North Korea- msnbc.com

    ".. U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday the international community would take action if North Korea went ahead with the launch to show Pyongyang it could not act with impunity.

    U.N. Security Council diplomats have told Reuters on condition of anonymity that no country was considering imposing new sanctions but the starting point could be discussing a resolution for the stricter enforcement of earlier sanctions.

    Both Russia and China, the latter the nearest the reclusive North has to a major ally, have made clear they would block new sanctions by the Council, where they have veto power.... "



    Obama is check-mated by a fourth-rate totalitarian, while he is yet fourth-rate


    anyone have a black umbrella for Obama?
     
  12. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    Launch confirmed. Launch successful.

    Why did Bush not try to engage North Korea diplomatically in his 8 freaking years? Why did "W" just say we're not negotiating with terrorists - and dig in his cowboy boots like a stubborn child - inevitably leading to this?
     
    #12 D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, Apr 5, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  13. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest

    Not so fast....

    Bush gets real on North Korea - The Boston Globe
     
  14. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    #14 B_VinylBoy, Apr 5, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  15. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Well, I'd imagine they'll start by taking Kim off their Christmas card list, again.

    Seriously though, purely for the edification of the the misinformed and mistaken (although as it turns out not mistaken) who believed the US would not act militarily today and 'blow this missile out of the sky'.

    Would those - see above for a distillation of wisdom from the 'usual suspects' (Star's comment excepted) who advocated, directly or indirectly a military response. I have a small task for you:


    Beginning with the US shooting down said missile, with supporting evidence for your conclusion(s) - evidence opposed to the trite barracking (mild pun intended) offered thus far, please provide :
    1. Your assessement of what you believe would have been the next ... five? moves in any resultant gameplay, and why.
    2. An alternate scenario for 1) had Japan done so instead.
    This shouldn't be unduly difficult for you - after all you're all highly knowlegable and experienced in formulating global military and political strategy, and planning for the many consequences of precipitate overseas military adventures, aren't you?

    Don't worry, I can predict the likely response and I'm just playing with you ... mostly. :wink:



    <side note>
    Kudos to Chuck, Flashy, Jason (who I suspect may have thought the missile would be shot down but understood the repercussions), Pym and one or two others for using their heads and thus avoid being mere also rans in this latest 'critical thinking' sweepstakes.
    </side note>
     
    #15 dong20, Apr 5, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  16. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Not so fast indeed. CBS news said today that while the first two sections of the missile were successful, the third did not engage and crashed into the sea.

    North Korea's cover story is that the rocket was designed to put a communications satellite into space which is a somewhat ridiculous claim for the world's most reclusive nation, although the satellite it held was intended to "carry the song of Kim Jong Il to the world". However, the failure of the third section of the missile has shown that North Korea is "a long way from being able to effectively deliver a nuclear device toward the United States".

    On a more optimistic front, many pundits are seeing this a a cry for help by North Korea in a move intended more to pressure the United States into direct talks with high level leaders than to threaten it militarily. Since Obama has already inicated such a willingness to consider such a move, this may have been unnecessary. In any event, the launch can be seen as something of an embarassment as well as a hollow and gratuitous gesture.
     
    #16 B_Nick8, Apr 5, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  17. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Maybe, but of course the advantage of such speculation (and that's pretty much all it is) is that is that, in the public arena at least, it could never be confirmed, and any denial would merely be the expected response. Thus, for the US at least, it becomes that bit easier to spin what amounts to having one's bluff called, into the proffering of an[other?] olive branch.

    I'm sure for North Korea the third failure of a missile to perform is an embarrassment on some level, but if the pundits are in fact correct then I'd imagine it will be even more of an irritation because it weakens Pyongyang's starting position in any potential talks that may follow.

    On the other hand, had it been a complete success, the incentive for prompt and meaningful dialogue - as opposed to more 'rhetoric' would have been that much more ... tangible.
     
  18. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    star/Nick/dong:

    Except for engaging in a handful of "Six-Party Talks" (between South Korea, North Korea, the U.S., China, Japan & Russia), the United States has slapped North Korea with the "Axis of Evil" label (along with Iran and Iraq) and has done little else.

    "Axis of Evil" was a term coined for Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address, delivered January 29, 2002.

    Bush's "pre-emptive invasion" of Iraq (where a country invades another before a supposed threat materialized), also known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom", began on March 20, 2003.

    The first of the "Six-Party Talks" were initiated August 27, 28, 29, 2003, 5 months after the invasion.


    If the pre-emptive Iraqi invasion was also supposed to serve as a deterrent for North Korea, it failed. In fact, it did the opposite. North Korea seemed more determined than ever to develop nuclear capabilities for self-protection, to avoid finding itself in Iraq's predicament.

    Now, ironically, North Korea has developed a marketable missile - a Taepo-dong 2 missile, a three-stage rocket with potential range of more than 4,100 miles - and Iran, a fellow "Axis of Evil" member, is a potential buyer of these rockets (N.K. remains years away from building a ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States mainland with a nuclear warhead).

    North Korea handed over an accounting of its nuclear activities in June, 2008, and "W"'s administration removed N.K. from it's "Axis of Evil" list.

    It seems there is very little the U.S. can do to stop North Korea's eventual nuclear capabilities. China may have power to influence North Korea, but the U.S. policies have always garnered the opposite response.

    starman: Please don't demean Obama with your knee-jerk reactions whenever he tries whatever he's going to try. Give him space to put something together before you "Hate Obama Firsters" start slamming him with regurgitated pre-emptive attacks.

    (p.s.: any administration that comes up with wacky Marvel Comics-style comic book slogans to describe serious threats - like "Evil Empire" {Reagan} or "Axis of Evil" {Bush} - needs to be ridiculed)
     
    #18 D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, Apr 5, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  19. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    a compelling argument can be made that North Korea's actions are designed to garner attention from the US President, in a desperate bid for help and assistance, using its only bargaining chip, the threat of military action (and it can only be a threat -- North Korean strategists were genuinely shocked and awed by the display they witnessed of American capabilities in Iraq)

    at the same time they are working on developing their capabilities -- the booster used, the location of its fall, and the trajectory all suggest the testing of missile technology

    comparing this launch, with the previous one, does show they are learning

    realistically, at this point, no significant credible military response could have issued from Pyongyang, had either japan or the USA shot it down (yes, the North Koreans have developed a rudimentary nuclear weaponry technology, but I don't know anyone who seriously believes they have a significant stockpile, or a delivery system)

    they would have lost a lot more by issuing a military response, and they know it

    there would have been a lot of hand-wringing from the EU, a lot of noise from the Russian Federation, and the prc, and a strengthening of the SCO alliance, but that is happening anyway

     
    #19 B_Nick4444, Apr 5, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  20. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    How original of you.:rolleyes:

    In relation to a temporary (China>NK) oil pipeline shutdown in March 2003:

    "We can't afford to shield North Korea any longer," Zhu Feng, an international security expert at Beijing University, said in an interview last month. "There is increasing recognition here if North Korea is finally armed with nuclear weapons, it will be a big threat to China."
    . . . "When the administration started this war in Iraq, they sent a message to countries who have or have had conflicts with the U.S., a clear message: The U.S. is not a paper tiger, it's a real tiger. And also that as a major power, the U.S.'s voice and principles should be listened to closely," said Zhang Liankui, a Central Party School professor.

    "If the U.S. quickly finishes this war successfully, the North Koreans will be more cautious in the future." . . . if the war goes badly, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il may feel he has the upper hand with the Bush administration, since waging a war on the peninsula would be far more difficult for the United States than a conflict in Iraq. "

    I wonder what he'd say today?
    Yes indeed, but once again you offer an exemplary illustration of how to almost entirely miss a point.If you need a clue, see above.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted