North Korea set to launch another missile

[rjd970]

Instead of going to Iraq for oil and rebuilding contracts. Cheney and Bush should have been looking at the real threats to us like Norh Korea.

I agree that N. Korea was always more of the real threat. When push came to shove, at least the Iraqi's and Iranians could be trusted to do what was in their best interest. N. Korea has a certifiable madman in control and is a legitimate nuclear threat.

 

[KB5252]

Is this not imperialism, plain and simple?

You can call it whatever you want, the fact that we have forces on their doorstep means we can bring the heat if they get froggy.

 

[KB5252]

U.S. Military Set to Intercept North Korean Ship Suspected of Proliferating Missiles, Nukes - Political News - FOXNews.com


The USS John McCain, a navy destroyer, will intercept the ship Kang Nam as soon as it leaves the vicinity off the coast of China, according to a senior U.S. defense official.

The U.S. military is planning to intercept a flagged North Korean ship suspected of proliferating weapons material in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution passed last Friday, FOX News has learned.

The USS John McCain, a navy destroyer, will intercept the ship Kang Nam as soon as it leaves the vicinity off the coast of China, according to a senior U.S. defense official. The order to inderdict has not been given yet, but the ship is getting into position.

The ship left a port in North Korea Wednesday and appears to be heading toward Singapore, according to a senior U.S. military source. The vessel, which the military has been tracking since its departure, could be carrying weaponry, missile parts or nuclear materials, a violation of U.N. Resolution 1874, which put sanctions in place against Pyongyang.

The USS McCain was involved in an incident with a Chinese sub last Friday - near Subic Bay off the Philippines.

 

[rjd970]

You can call it whatever you want, the fact that we have forces on their doorstep means we can bring the heat if they get froggy.

We can bring the heat anyway, whether we are there or not.

I understand what your saying though. But having all these permanent bases all over the world seems very imperialistic, and an overextension.

 

[KB5252]

We can bring the heat anyway, whether we are there or not.

I understand what your saying though. But having all these permanent bases all over the world seems very imperialistic, and an overextension.

I think it is more about the pressure it puts on Iran, I agree we can strike them regardless, it does make the logistics easier. I think the pressure of having forces sniffing around both sides of Iran is where the "heat" is coming from.

North Korea and Kim Jong more resemble the kid on the far side of the playground. If he could get closer to you he could do some damage. Their military is weak and the only prayer he has is nuclear or biological. At this point you let him keep throwing fits until he does something provocative that you can't ignore anymore, which I think he might be on the cusp of doing now. We will see when and if we board this ship we are watching, his response will dictate how much the tensions escalate.

 

[rjd970]

U.S. Military Set to Intercept North Korean Ship Suspected of Proliferating Missiles, Nukes - Political News - FOXNews.com


The USS John McCain, a navy destroyer, will intercept the ship Kang Nam as soon as it leaves the vicinity off the coast of China, according to a senior U.S. defense official.

The U.S. military is planning to intercept a flagged North Korean ship suspected of proliferating weapons material in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution passed last Friday, FOX News has learned.

The USS John McCain, a navy destroyer, will intercept the ship Kang Nam as soon as it leaves the vicinity off the coast of China, according to a senior U.S. defense official. The order to inderdict has not been given yet, but the ship is getting into position.

The ship left a port in North Korea Wednesday and appears to be heading toward Singapore, according to a senior U.S. military source. The vessel, which the military has been tracking since its departure, could be carrying weaponry, missile parts or nuclear materials, a violation of U.N. Resolution 1874, which put sanctions in place against Pyongyang.

The USS McCain was involved in an incident with a Chinese sub last Friday - near Subic Bay off the Philippines.

So let's tally it up here.....

Producing WMD's against UN sanctions: NK-Check; Iraq-Check

Kicking out weapon inpsectors: NK-Check; Iraq-Check

Actually having WMD's: NK-Check, Iraq-Well, you know...

Dictatorial Human Rights Abuses against his own people: NK-Check; Iraq-Check

State Sponsor of Terrorism: NK-Check, Iraq-Check

...What are we waiting on? What say you warhawks...when whould we invade for this just cause and threat?

 

[rjd970]

I think it is more about the pressure it puts on Iran, I agree we can strike them regardless, it does make the logistics easier. I think the pressure of having forces sniffing around both sides of Iran is where the "heat" is coming from.

North Korea and Kim Jong more resemble the kid on the far side of the playground. If he could get closer to you he could do some damage. Their military is weak and the only prayer he has is nuclear or biological. At this point you let him keep throwing fits until he does something provocative that you can't ignore anymore, which I think he might be on the cusp of doing now. We will see when and if we board this ship we are watching, his response will dictate how much the tensions escalate.

The military is weak and his only prayer is WMD...sounds very similar to Iraq....and he can get a lot closer than Saddam ever could. His missiles can smell Hawaii and Alaska. So we have an Iraq like threat, who actually has more capability than Iraq ever did.

And if you want to play the imperialism..forward operationg base game...it can't be that bad to be that close to China, Russia, and a backdoor to the entire Asian continent.

I don't see how anybody can defend the Iraq war with the stated reasoning of the last administration and not be flabbergasted we let N. Korea get this far without some sort of strikes.

 

[MG1968]

So let's tally it up here.....

Producing WMD's against UN sanctions: NK-Check; Iraq-Check

Kicking out weapon inpsectors: NK-Check; Iraq-Check

Actually having WMD's: NK-Check, Iraq-Well, you know...

Dictatorial Human Rights Abuses against his own people: NK-Check; Iraq-Check

State Sponsor of Terrorism: NK-Check, Iraq-Check

...What are we waiting on? What say you warhawks...when whould we invade for this just cause and threat?

you forgot one.

Backed up militarily and philosophically by the most populace nation on earth, China. NK-check, Iraq-umm, no

oh, and one more

Sitting on some of the largest, proven oil reserves in the world? NK-ummm no, Iraq-you betcha, Charlie.

NK's aggression can be contained and they don't have a bunch of European nations enabling them via an "oil for food" scheme

 

[KB5252]

So let's tally it up here.....

Producing WMD's against UN sanctions: NK-Check; Iraq-Check

Kicking out weapon inpsectors: NK-Check; Iraq-Check

Actually having WMD's: NK-Check, Iraq-Well, you know...

Dictatorial Human Rights Abuses against his own people: NK-Check; Iraq-Check

State Sponsor of Terrorism: NK-Check, Iraq-Check

...What are we waiting on? What say you warhawks...when whould we invade for this just cause and threat?

I wouldn't call myself a warhawk. As far as the WMD's go we absolutely know that Iraq had them, after all they used them on the Iranians and their own people.

There is one HUGE difference in the two situations, Iraq had no China to standing at their shoulder.

 

[rjd970]

you forgot one.

Backed up militarily and philosophically by the most populace nation on earth, China. NK-check, Iraq-umm, no

oh, and one more

Sitting on some of the largest, proven oil reserves in the world? NK-ummm no, Iraq-you betcha, Charlie.

NK's aggression can be contained and they don't have a bunch of European nations enabling them via an "oil for food" scheme

Who said NK would be backed up militarily by China? The only way China would ever go toe to toe with the US is if there is some sort of Taiwan situation. No way they would risk their economic security over NK.

And the comment about NK's aggression being contained....when we are on the heels of yet another ICBM test by them, they just tested yet another nuclear weapon, and their leader is a legitimate madman...is bordering on comical. And it is downright silly if you are assuming Saddam couldn't be contained. Hell, technically speaking, we are still at war with NK.

Tell me there Sarah.....much of that Iraqi oil have we actually been using?

This whole axis of evil thing is like tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. You go after the least dangerous one and leave the other two alone to cause as much problems as they want.

 

[rjd970]

I wouldn't call myself a warhawk. As far as the WMD's go we absolutely know that Iraq had them, after all they used them on the Iranians and their own people.

There is one HUGE difference in the two situations, Iraq had no China to standing at their shoulder.

China is a non-issue. I'm sure they would condemn strikes, but unless we are getting involved in the Taiwan business, I don't think they actually come to the defense of NK. They can't be happy about defectors and basically having a dependent on their economy.

 

[MontereyVol]

China is a non-issue. I'm sure they would condemn strikes, but unless we are getting involved in the Taiwan business, I don't think they actually come to the defense of NK. They can't be happy about defectors and basically having a dependent on their economy.

China will be an issue. They are not going to like having US troops that close to their border.

 

[MG1968]

we were still at war with Iraq as well. UN resolutions all called for the resumption of hostilities if they didn't meet the agreed to requirements.

If you don't think China would act, you're smoking something. Just ask a veteran of the Cho Sin Reservoir if China wouldn't get involved.

Saddam couldn't be contained because our so-called allies were enabling him through deliberate misuse of the oil for food program. I wonder how far along his nuclear program would be by now had the US been content to merely let the UN issue more resolutions.

 

[rjd970]

China will be an issue. They are not going to like having US troops that close to their border.

I disagree, I guess that means I am smoking something.

China needs us much more now...economically...than they did in the 1950's. They would strongly condemn such action, but they wouldn't do a thing about it. And remember, this isn't like Iraq, if we actually topple the regime, there are South Koreans that would be a willing partner in rebuilding. We are not talking about religious and tribal differences being that much of an issue, requiring any need for extended stay. The only reason we are in Korea in the first place is because of the North. We have plenty of bases in Japan that are more than enough for what we would need in Asia.

Furthermore, I think if China would be that worried about us invading the North, they would lean on N. Korea to tone it down a bit. North Korea is nothing more than a buffer and pawn used by China. It would basically be like South Korea in the North, and I don't see how China can see that as any significant threat, especially if we don't stay for any significant time.

Regardless, assuming that N. Korea can be contained and somehow Iraq couldn't is nonsense. We already have forwarding operating bases outside of Korea, there is no economic reason for us to vest in, rebuilding would be easier, and they are a legitimate threat guilty of everything Iraq was accused of.

...defending the Iraq war and not being on board with striking N. Korea makes no sense to me.

 

[MontereyVol]

I disagree, I guess that means I am smoking something.

No, I am just disagreeing with you. You may be right but I doubt it.

China needs us much more now...economically...than they did in the 1950's. They would strongly condemn such action, but they wouldn't do a thing about it. And remember, this isn't like Iraq, if we actually topple the regime, there are South Koreans that would be a willing partner in rebuilding. We are not talking about religious and tribal differences being that much of an issue, requiring any need for extended stay. The only reason we are in Korea in the first place is because of the North. We have plenty of bases in Japan that are more than enough for what we would need in Asia.

Why would China invade last time? We were allies in WWII and helped (if not so much as did it for them) rid them of the Japanese.

Furthermore, I think if China would be that worried about us invading the North, they would lean on N. Korea to tone it down a bit. North Korea is nothing more than a buffer and pawn used by China. It would basically be like South Korea in the North, and I don't see how China can see that as any significant threat, especially if we don't stay for any significant time.

China frequently leans on NK to tone it down, what most people fail to realize is NK has more than once pissed off the Chinese. They do not control NK anymore than we do.

Regardless, assuming that N. Korea can be contained and somehow Iraq couldn't is nonsense. We already have forwarding operating bases outside of Korea, there is no economic reason for us to vest in, rebuilding would be easier, and they are a legitimate threat guilty of everything Iraq was accused of.

Yet, where can we get to them with land based military?

...defending the Iraq war and not being on board with striking N. Korea makes no sense to me.

I was then as I am still, against us sending troops into Iraq.

 

[rjd970]

No, I am just disagreeing with you. You may be right but I doubt it.



Why would China invade last time? We were allies in WWII and helped (if not so much as did it for them) rid them of the Japanese.



China frequently leans on NK to tone it down, what most people fail to realize is NK has more than once pissed off the Chinese. They do not control NK anymore than we do.



Yet, where can we get to them with land based military?



I was then as I am still, against us sending troops into Iraq.

China was a political ally of N. Korea...as they are now, with one big exception...they have a free market economy that is highly dependent upon the US. I still contend, anything short of us launching attacks at them from Taiwan and they don't do anything significant.

I think they have more control over them than you think. I think I read somewhere they provide greater than 90% of N. Korea's energy. That is a tremendous amount of control.

 

[rjd970]

That's a good point about launching a land based attack from N. Korea. If a Taiwan situation went down if could be beneficial.

 

[MontereyVol]

China was a political ally of N. Korea...as they are now, with one big exception...they have a free market economy that is highly dependent upon the US. I still contend, anything short of us launching attacks at them from Taiwan and they don't do anything significant.

I think they have more control over them than you think. I think I read somewhere they provide greater than 90% of N. Korea's energy. That is a tremendous amount of control.

Dependency, in this case is a double edged sword. China didn't do anything significant during the Korean conflict according to their history. I would envision they would run along the same path this time. Denying being involved while flooding the North with millions of troops. Although, this time they would be better trained and armed.

 

[rjd970]

Dependency, in this case is a double edged sword. China didn't do anything significant during the Korean conflict according to their history. I would envision they would run along the same path this time. Denying being involved while flooding the North with millions of troops. Although, this time they would be better trained and armed.

But this wouldn't be a war based on political ideology...it would be a war based on a legitimate threat, in this case, to US soil. Comparing the current situation to the Korean conflict of the 50's is comparing two completely different set of circumstances. We aren't worrying about communism spreading here, we are worried we may wake up tomorrow and Honolulu or Juno may not be there anymore.

Dependency is a two way street here, but when it comes down to it...which is more important, securing US soil, or our economic partnership with China? I guarantee if China has to choose between getting involved and risking economic security...or letting N. Korea be absorbed by the South...I know which one they would choose.

 

[MontereyVol]

But this wouldn't be a war based on political ideology...it would be a war based on a legitimate threat, in this case, to US soil. Comparing the current situation to the Korean conflict of the 50's is comparing two completely different set of circumstances. We aren't worrying about communism spreading here, we are worried we may wake up tomorrow and Honolulu or Juno may not be there anymore.

Dependency is a two way street here, but when it comes down to it...which is more important, securing US soil, or our economic partnership with China? I guarantee if China has to choose between getting involved and risking economic security...or letting N. Korea be absorbed by the South...I know which one they would choose.

I too think China would like to see the South absorb the North, just without the US being heavily involved. Plus it would mean the end of US bases on the Peninsula.

I don't think a missile test is going to make the Chinese feel better about having US troops operating at their border. From a military prospective they aren't happy about the current situation with Taiwan and Japan but its tolerable because if we went to war with China the US would have to get Taiwan and Japan to join us and its a good possibility they wont. Then we would have to attack from Gaum, Okinawa(maybe?) and Hawaii.

Do not forget that China is still ruled by Communist. That free market economy will evaporate to dust if they need it to. Never discredit the paranoia that exists amongst countries when armies begin to collide.

 

[MontereyVol]

BTW, TennTradition if you want to make a bet for the 4th of July on whether the NK missile gets knocked down or not, I'm all for it!

 

[KB5252]

BTW, TennTradition if you want to make a bet for the 4th of July on whether the NK missile gets knocked down or not, I'm all for it!

So do you think we knock it down or not?

 

[TennTradition]

BTW, TennTradition if you want to make a bet for the 4th of July on whether the NK missile gets knocked down or not, I'm all for it!

I've honestly been wondering about that one. I haven't said anything because I made a comment a while back that I've tried to stick to - I'm going to try to be more fair to the missile shield.

Is this missile a ballistic missile - and are we talking exoatmospheric intercept? If so, then I'm tempted to take the bet. I would be even more willing to take the bet if their missile involves even basic balloon and chafe countermeasures.

If we go for endoatmospheric intercept of a (unarmed) missile, then I think that we can get it.

Edit: My reason for saying I would be more "fair" is that I can't in good faith say that I KNOW the missile shield will not work. I have serious concerns about the effectiveness of our missile defense when applied in exoatmospheric hit-to-kill scenarios (particularly when countermeasures are involved), but to continually attack something that I have not worked with directly and perhaps do not know all details of is probably unfair...though I will readily admit that the physics they are battling against in these scenarios are daunting.

 

[TennTradition]

So do you think we knock it down or not?

He thinks we do...

 

[DC Vol]

BTW, TennTradition if you want to make a bet for the 4th of July on whether the NK missile gets knocked down or not, I'm all for it!

If we decide to intercept it, it'll go down. It'll be a lot more amusing, though, when/if it splashes into the Pacific far off it's "target".

All things said, it's good for my line of work if it explodes over the Sea of Japan.