Obama brings a word processor to a ballistic missle fight.

Guy-jin

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
3,836
Media
3
Likes
1,368
Points
333
Location
San Jose (California, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Male
Two problems there. We have no proper diplomatic channel to speak to North Korea. No other country would deliver a message that amounted to an ultimatum. That's not how mediated diplomacy works. Sweden or Ireland or Switzerland or some other neutral country might have delivered a humanitarian message for us or an invitation to talk, but never an ultimatum. That's a case of making the messenger look bad.

The second problem is that we cannot, under international law and our own accord with North Korea (in tatters as it is), shoot down a missile that has no hostile intent. If it's not an armed weapon, you can't shoot it out of the sky. If any country had a right to do so, it was Japan as the missile did pass through Japanese airspace however their constitution is so restrictive regarding when Japan can use force, that they could not shoot down the missile either unless it appeared it was going to land or break-up in Japanese territory.

I don't completely agree. Given its situation with Japan, the United States would have been in its rights to shoot down the missile as it passed through Japanese airspace.

My actual thought on the issue is that our anti-ballistic missile system has had 6/6 successful tests reported. But what an utter shame it would have been if this seventh supposed test of the system had failed. If anything would have shown weakness, it would have been us proving that we can't shoot down that missile when North Korea uses it.

As we stand now, the United States still holds the image of a country that can shoot missiles out of the sky reliably. If a public test of the system fails, especially in response to a generally hostile nation like North Korea, and you've got a far worse image problem than the one that's set up now.

This is completely ignoring the political ramifications of shooting it down, which are complex to the point that I've little impetus to post further on them in this setting. Sufficed to say, it's not at all as simple as shooting that missile out of the sky to show our "strength". The idea that the country with by far the most obviously advanced military in the world needs to show "strength" is just asinine anyway.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,792
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
it seems that Obama and his bean counter have a problem visualizing missiles, chinese, Russian, or anyone else's, as a credible threat worthy of articulating a sound defense strategy against

seems they believe the future is fraught with Islamic insurgents hiding out in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan (and Beverly Hills?)

planned missile shields will not be forthcoming under Gates' proposed budget, and a great part of the budget will be allocated to special forces units who will be hunting down the insurgents


Cuts To F-22s, Presidential Copter Planned - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis



Oh- I suppose you prefer Newt's Imaginary space lasers destroying missiles pre-emptively as a "sound" policy?


You conservatives are such uninfomred rubes.
The billions spent on a "missile shield" have not produced a single usable anti-missile system, and have not even produced a usable SUB-system.

There are no "space lasers" and the stupidest thing any US president could do would be to ATTEMPT to sabotage or destroy some other nation's "missle" and FAIL.

Instead- allowing the Korean to launch allowed government intelligence agencies to capture critical information of North Korean capabilities and, in the final analysis, Two out of 3 stages on their "stacked Scud" design failed... providing Korea with a public humiliation, and defanging their ICBM threat.


So, Sorry you conservative scared cats... you can climb out from under your beds...

Every sober military analysis makes perfectly clear that the primary nuclear threat is from a bomb smuggled into the country overland.

Missiles are hard to make, expensive to maintain and highly visible on launch.
And history proves perfectly that having the world's largest fleet of ballistic missile submarines is sufficient deterrent to keep EVERY nuclear missile in their silo.


Yeah... Obama did not react to a Korean missile launch by invading the worng country...

He ALSO did not react the way Bush reacted to Korea detonating a nuclear test bomb...

If you recall, Bush responded to that threat by giving North Korea favored trading status and paying them millions of dollars....


Yeah... that worked...
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Oh- I suppose you prefer Newt's Imaginary space lasers destroying missiles pre-emptively as a "sound" policy?


You conservatives are such uninfomred rubes.
The billions spent on a "missile shield" have not produced a single usable anti-missile system, and have not even produced a usable SUB-system.

There are no "space lasers" and the stupidest thing any US president could do would be to ATTEMPT to sabotage or destroy some other nation's "missle" and FAIL.

Instead- allowing the Korean to launch allowed government intelligence agencies to capture critical information of North Korean capabilities and, in the final analysis, Two out of 3 stages on their "stacked Scud" design failed... providing Korea with a public humiliation, and defanging their ICBM threat.


So, Sorry you conservative scared cats... you can climb out from under your beds...

Every sober military analysis makes perfectly clear that the primary nuclear threat is from a bomb smuggled into the country overland.

Missiles are hard to make, expensive to maintain and highly visible on launch.
And history proves perfectly that having the world's largest fleet of ballistic missile submarines is sufficient deterrent to keep EVERY nuclear missile in their silo.


Yeah... Obama did not react to a Korean missile launch by invading the worng country...

He ALSO did not react the way Bush reacted to Korea detonating a nuclear test bomb...

If you recall, Bush responded to that threat by giving North Korea favored trading status and paying them millions of dollars....


Yeah... that worked...

You are an idiot and prove it over and over.

If we were dealing with rational people most of what you said might hold true. But rogue countries with rogue leaders cannot be trusted to abide by rational thought.

If NKs nutcase leader is OK with starving his people he will likely be OK with any response we might offer following the launch of a nuclear scud.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,792
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
You are an idiot and prove it over and over.
That is not an argument.
Try making an argument and try backing it with evidence supporting your hysteria.

NAME a leader of a rogue state who ever launched a suicidal attack on a superpower.

C'mon... there's nothing "new" about despots... FIND one...

Just one "rogue nation" that attacked a super power in a manner certain to result in the total annihilation of their regime.


If NKs nutcase leader is OK with starving his people he will likely be OK with any response we might offer following the launch of a nuclear scud.

That is what is called in debate a "non-sequitur". You offer no rationale nor linkage to show how being willing to starve your own people makes you more likely to commit political suicide by attacking a nation that has the power to utterly destroy you.


Whereas I can demonstrate the opposite.

Stalin was a despot who starved 5 million russians to death.
AND he had Numerous nuclear weapons.

Yet he never launched one at the US.

Here's the truth about nukes... Know why everybody wants a nuke?
Because if you HAVE one, NO ONE WILL ATTACK YOU.

Bush attacked Iraq because, his lies notwithstanding, he absolutely KNEW Saddam had NO WMDs... it was safe to attack him because he could not retaliate, and they knew it.

Bush BRIBED Korea, why? Because Korea HAS a nuclear bomb.

The lesson is very clear... Nukes buy you respect and keep foreign armies off your soil...

But here's the kicker... Nukes ONLY provide this benefit if you NEVER use them.

You absolutely do not throw your one or two nukes at a country that has 13,000 of them. In submarines, off your coast.


So here's why your total lack of argument fails.

The far greater threat from Korea is that his starving people will sneak fissionable material out the back door to try and feed their familes...
The far more likely scenario would be for him to attack us surreptitiously, WITHOUT strapping a nuke to a giant missle that says KOREA all over it.


The "missile shield" is still a pipe dream. And given the nature of the world and our likely enemies, it is idiotic and irrespinsible to invest billions of dollars to create a defense agaisnt something that is so unlikely to be needed, while underfunding and ignoring the much larger threats that do exist.

The most dangerous thing we can do is help create 'rogue nations' by isolating them thru sanctions and embargoes.

Iran is self sufficient as a direct result of our refusal to trade with them.
We have made them stronger, and LESS dependent upon the wider world.

That is stupid.


Nations we have open trade with become economically entangled with the world.
That results in them being unable to AFFORD to war.


So, please... we managed to prevent nuclear WW3 for 60 years thru detente, thru negotiation and diplomacy.

We STILL HAVE ALL THOSE NUKES to fall back on.

What we need to worry about is our economy... and small groups of extremists getting ahold of fissile material from countries like Korea.

That is why we need to engage with them and develop better relations.
Kim Jong Il will not live forever.



Oh, and BTW... the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame to punish her husband for telling the truth about their WMD lies?

Plame worked for a covert CIA group that TRACED fissile materials trafficking.
The CIA had invested 20 years in developing this network of covert operations and contacts...

And outing Plame forced the CIA to shut down the entire thing.

If some group of religious nuts sneaks a dirty bomb or nuke into a US city in the next 10 years...
It will be because Bush and Cheney and Rove committed treason to teach Joe Wilson a lesson.. and that resulted in the dismantling of our own Loose Nukes intelligence network.

Stupid neocon morons...
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That is not an argument.
Try making an argument and try backing it with evidence supporting your hysteria.

NAME a leader of a rogue state who ever launched a suicidal attack on a superpower.

C'mon... there's nothing "new" about despots... FIND one...

Just one "rogue nation" that attacked a super power in a manner certain to result in the total annihilation of their regime.




That is what is called in debate a "non-sequitur". You offer no rationale nor linkage to show how being willing to starve your own people makes you more likely to commit political suicide by attacking a nation that has the power to utterly destroy you.


Whereas I can demonstrate the opposite.

Stalin was a despot who starved 5 million russians to death.
AND he had Numerous nuclear weapons.

Yet he never launched one at the US.

Here's the truth about nukes... Know why everybody wants a nuke?
Because if you HAVE one, NO ONE WILL ATTACK YOU.

Bush attacked Iraq because, his lies notwithstanding, he absolutely KNEW Saddam had NO WMDs... it was safe to attack him because he could not retaliate, and they knew it.

Bush BRIBED Korea, why? Because Korea HAS a nuclear bomb.

The lesson is very clear... Nukes buy you respect and keep foreign armies off your soil...

But here's the kicker... Nukes ONLY provide this benefit if you NEVER use them.

You absolutely do not throw your one or two nukes at a country that has 13,000 of them. In submarines, off your coast.


So here's why your total lack of argument fails.

The far greater threat from Korea is that his starving people will sneak fissionable material out the back door to try and feed their familes...
The far more likely scenario would be for him to attack us surreptitiously, WITHOUT strapping a nuke to a giant missle that says KOREA all over it.


The "missile shield" is still a pipe dream. And given the nature of the world and our likely enemies, it is idiotic and irrespinsible to invest billions of dollars to create a defense agaisnt something that is so unlikely to be needed, while underfunding and ignoring the much larger threats that do exist.

The most dangerous thing we can do is help create 'rogue nations' by isolating them thru sanctions and embargoes.

Iran is self sufficient as a direct result of our refusal to trade with them.
We have made them stronger, and LESS dependent upon the wider world.

That is stupid.


Nations we have open trade with become economically entangled with the world.
That results in them being unable to AFFORD to war.


So, please... we managed to prevent nuclear WW3 for 60 years thru detente, thru negotiation and diplomacy.

We STILL HAVE ALL THOSE NUKES to fall back on.

What we need to worry about is our economy... and small groups of extremists getting ahold of fissile material from countries like Korea.

That is why we need to engage with them and develop better relations.
Kim Jong Il will not live forever.



Oh, and BTW... the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame to punish her husband for telling the truth about their WMD lies?

Plame worked for a covert CIA group that TRACED fissile materials trafficking.
The CIA had invested 20 years in developing this network of covert operations and contacts...

And outing Plame forced the CIA to shut down the entire thing.

If some group of religious nuts sneaks a dirty bomb or nuke into a US city in the next 10 years...
It will be because Bush and Cheney and Rove committed treason to teach Joe Wilson a lesson.. and that resulted in the dismantling of our own Loose Nukes intelligence network.

Stupid neocon morons...

Mr. Phil is now a new member of the Dull Knife Club.

They aren't going to attack America, he might drop one on South Korea or Japan or Taiwan or wherever.

And WTF does Valerie Plame have to do with an NK missile launch?

Plus you just had the most circular argument ever. You said and I quote "create rogue nations by putting up sanctions...."

So you must be thrilled that Pres Bush at least engaged North Korea and tried to bribe them? Far better than sanctions, in your world? So you must be proud of ol W at least when it comes to NK.

Thanks for playing.


Sheesh.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I don't completely agree. Given its situation with Japan, the United States would have been in its rights to shoot down the missile as it passed through Japanese airspace.

While Japan's 'reliance' on the US for defence against any potential nuclear attack (and the regular visits by the Seventh Fleet) still sits uncomfortably with many Japanese - although as I understood it (and my exposure is limited) this discomfort is felt far less keenly than the wider stronger aversion to rearmament never mind the more 'taboo'; nuclearisation.

While I agree with the sentiment of what you say, I'm not sure 'within its rights' is quite the correct phraseology. Obliged on request ...

This is completely ignoring the political ramifications of shooting it down, which are complex to the point that I've little impetus to post further on them in this setting. Sufficed to say, it's not at all as simple as shooting that missile out of the sky to show our "strength". The idea that the country with by far the most obviously advanced military in the world needs to show "strength" is just asinine anyway.

This is (not entirely) why I always laugh when I read the delusional nonsense peddled by Wyld, Faceking, Nick 'o' the 4s, Calamo and their ilk on this subject. A doctrine of 'shoot first, negotiate later' works fine in Hollywood movies ... when it comes to geopolitical strategy, not so much.

That said, if the US or Japan use bellicose language, shouldn't have have the cojones to back it up? That said, since they were never going to talk Pyongyang down and they knew it, I also understand the rationale behind why they did use it, and didn't act on it, respectively ... if you follow!

It's telling how none of those I asked, even attempted (well Nick sort of tried, only not really) to posit an answer to the questions I asked here.I wonder why ...(and yes, that's rhetorical wondering).:rolleyes:

Like you say ... despite the forum title, given the complexity of the 'fallout', perhaps this isn't really the venue and so I should simply be grateful.
 
Last edited:

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,792
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Mr. Phil is now a new member of the Dull Knife Club.

They aren't going to attack America, he might drop one on South Korea or Japan or Taiwan or wherever.

Look, Wyld, South Korea is an ALLY of the US. He drops one on them, we respond. That's what it says in the contract.

And if WE didn't, France would. No primary nuclear power would stand idle when some jerkwater nation is tossing nukes.
Kim ramped up his nuclear program in RESPONSE to Bush's Neo-Con pre-emptive war policy.

Not so he could launch them, but so no one would ever think of attacking nor invading him.
Again, try and wrap your head around detente, the most successful defense strategy ever concieved.


And WTF does Valerie Plame have to do with an NK missile launch?
Your direct implcation was that Obama resorting to diplomacy was not the way to go, that the conservtive approach to defense was better.

The conservative approach to defense not only got us into two wars over nothing... FAILED to prevent Korea's nuke program, and ended up resorting to bribing him...

AND- destroyed our OWN covert efforts to track the fissile materials that Korea and Pakistan might be selling to actual terrorists.

By contrast... Obama's approach seems vastly more intelligent, cogent, and well planned.

Conservatives TALK tough... but then they attack the wrong guys, piss off whole new nations of Arabs, back down in the face of REAL nuclear proliferation, and undermine the only effort they actually have going to try and prevent a loose nuke from falling into the wrong hands.


Plus you just had the most circular argument ever. You said and I quote "create rogue nations by putting up sanctions...."

So you must be thrilled that Pres Bush at least engaged North Korea and tried to bribe them? Far better than sanctions, in your world? So you must be proud of ol W at least when it comes to NK.



Well, approaching North Korea WAS the closest Bush ever got to a sound foriegn policy.
Although I think it would have been better if he had gotten in there and made the deal BEFORE Kim started testing nuclear bombs..

That way it wouldn't have looked to the world like you can get the US to make nice if you just light off an abomb or two.

Its not a circular argument to demonstrate to you that YOUR position, that the conservatives handled it better, is simply false, because Bush did exactly what you accused Obama of doing... of bringing a word processor to a nuke fight.


Get it? It wasn't a circular argument... it was pointing out to you that you were
claiming, falsely, that Bush did it different.

He did not.

Ergo, your "argument" fails.

especially in the light of 50 years of treaties with other nuclear nations that were all, essentially, diplomacy typed on paper.

Please... when it comes to geo-politics, you conservatives should just leave it to the people with the education and intelligence to understand it.

Like Bush 1, Clinton, and, hell, even Nixon knew you make Red China your pal thru trade rather than isolation.
 
Last edited:

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's telling how none of those I asked, even attempted (well Nick sort of tried, only not really) to posit an answer to the questions I asked here.I wonder why ...(and yes, that's rhetorical wondering).:rolleyes:

Like you say ... despite the forum title, given the complexity of the 'fallout', perhaps this isn't really the venue and so I should simply be grateful.

part of the failure to respond, I'll admit, was framing a possible response from beijing and Moscow

would have involved more speculation than I'm comfortable with, and the possibilities were numerous

nevertheless, a military response would have been tenable (I do think that constraints on military responses because of a presumed violation of international law are naive and misplaced; review of world history before the League of Nations, after the league collapse, and since the United Nations exposes that fallacy)

BTW, since my post I've actually had time to read the reaction to Obama's response -- across the ideological and national spectrums, all comment was that a more forceful response than what Obama presented was entirely in order

nice to be able to pat my back on that one :biggrin1:

(when time allows, I shall also frame a response to the positions that the missile shields are not viable)

 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
part of the failure to respond, I'll admit, was framing a possible response from beijing and Moscow
would have involved more speculation than I'm comfortable with, and the possibilities were numerous

Ah, so you would have 'fired first and worried about the consequences later'? :biggrin1:

I merely asked for an expression of what some posters believed may have happened, something by nature involving speculation. Your response goes some way to reconfirming my long held suspiscion that in truth, you have no idea what the consequences may have been - and that your commentary was merely more trite rhetoric.

nevertheless, a military response would have been tenable (I do think that constraints on military responses because of a presumed violation of international law are naive and misplaced; review of world history before the League of Nations, after the league collapse, and since the United Nations exposes that fallacy)

Really. I agree, it would have been a tenable response, but would it have been the most effective one?

One could conclude from the above that you might favour a world where nations should be free to persue their political and national aims by whatever means deemed necessary, free from accountability. I'm assuming you don't have such a view and that some caveats must be applied?

I also assume your use of the word 'response' was intentional - so the question is perhaps - what sort of response are we talking about -shooting down a non hostile missile or invading and occupying a sovereign nation - both under questional legality ... or is it somewhere between.

Can such circumstances be easily defined in a national context. Inther words, wouldn't such an attempt tend to constititute an exercise in a [subjective] rationalisation for a forceful persuit of national interest?

This is an example of uncertaintanty and convenient interpretation that international law is aimed at removing (and by implication the UN tasked with enforcing). The frequent failure of both to do so effectively, consistently or evenly is [arguably] more a failure of people, than principle.

BTW, since my post I've actually had time to read the reaction to Obama's response -- across the ideological and national spectrums, all comment was that a more forceful response than what Obama presented was entirely in order

Of course, that's easy to say, but such circumstances as last week presented pretty much mandated a binary response; Obama could have shot the missile down or not.

Failing such a response, in view of US history with North Korea, and assuming such pundits are not advocating for all out invasion, one must then ask - in practical terms, exactly what would a more 'forceful' response entail ...?

Do I think it was a predictable play, poorly executed by a new administration - absolutely. Do I think, on balance that the lack of a military response was correct, yes. That is my opinion, and while I fully accept that I can't prove its validity, until I see compelling evidence to alter my view I continue to stand behind it.

I imagine you feel that same way, that's your prerogative too.