With the announcement that North Korea has succesfully detonated an atomic bomb, the following actions ought to be taken:

At the earliest possible time (within a few hours from right now) president Bush - as well as perhaps president Putin and Jintao, prime minister Blair, and various others - should announce their intention on the dismantling of the North Korean government by any means necessary. In essence: They must affirm that if North Korea's government does not capitulate and surrender its sovereignty within 24 hours, and peacefully allows a UN (or simply national) forces into their borders, that Pyongyang will be struck with a hydrogen bomb. Moreover, if Kim Jung'il launches an attack (conventional or nuclear) within said 24 hours, the nuclear counter-attack would commence without warning.

The reasons for the above are abundantly clear. But to list but a few to explain my rationale:

1. North Korea is an unstable government lead by a despot whose horrors rivals those of the most fiendish men would have ever walked the Earth. He is a Mao for a new century.

2. North Korea has completely destroyed the restrictions placed upon it by the United Nations. Without the United Nations becoming a joke (or moreso than it is) we must see to it that North Korea is destroyed.

3. Diplomacy has become impossible. The entire purpose was to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. That has failed.

4. Giving North Korea anything more than the brief period of time will allow them to potentially arm themselves with more nuclear weapons. This would make a counter-attack possible that would endanger Seoul, Tokyo, Beijing, and various other population centres.

5. Other countries, such as Iran, must be shown that the only result of going nuclear in the face of world opposition is annihilation, not a bargaining tool.

6. This ought to be an international effort, as North Korea poses a truly global threat. The responses from China have been very promising in this regard.

Hi James,

I hope you are well and thank you for your thread

what about the innocent Koreans who will die in such a nuclear exchange...

its not like they voted for Kim is it

##########
take care
zak

Military action is no longer an option.

Not only that but they could easily retaliate by nuclear bombing Tokyo or Seoul.

They would have nothing left to lose.

Nick:

Military action is no longer an option.

COOORRRECT!

You can't unring a bell...

Not only that but they could easily retaliate by nuclear bombing Tokyo or Seoul.

They would have nothing left to lose.

Actually it would be hard. A nuclear bomb is difficult to manufacture even when you 100% know what you are doing. North Korea would have to build a bomb, detonate it successfully then have their scientist build another. That is going to take some time. Twenty four hours is a good window becuase it minimizes this threat.

Plus honestly what is a few hundred thousand versus the tens of millions that would die if we let North Korea be a nuclear power for any extended amount of time.

Same is true of Iran which has already declared that they wish to wipe Israle off the map with one strike. A nation that even hints that should not be alllowed nuclear ability.

Actually it would be hard. A nuclear bomb is difficult to manufacture even when you 100% know what you are doing. North Korea would have to build a bomb, detonate it successfully then have their scientist build another. That is going to take some time. Twenty four hours is a good window becuase it minimizes this threat.

Plus honestly what is a few hundred thousand versus the tens of millions that would die if we let North Korea be a nuclear power for any extended amount of time.

Same is true of Iran which has already declared that they wish to wipe Israle off the map with one strike. A nation that even hints that should not be alllowed nuclear ability.

1. They already have several nukes for quite some time according to North Korea.
2. If we can nuke anyone who is a threat to the world can we please start by nuking the US?
3. a few hundred thousand lives mean nothing to you. Well, how can you respond to that? I would say please report the world court in the hague and tell them you have aspirations for commiting genocide. And ask if they can lock you up before you unleash your inner beast.

Military action is no longer an option.

Why not? Tell me what's different now as opposed to the time of World War II? What's changed?

I would also ask what one is to do, what other options are available, when diplomacy doesn't work? And as far as I can tell, diplomacy has never worked to resolve any major conflict in all of human history ...so what other options remain?

Baron Max

..so what other options remain?


accept that another country has nuclear capability?

it was acceptable for pakistan after all.

accept that another country has nuclear capability?

I liken that to supporting the right of a school yard bully to have the same or bigger weapons than the school yard monitors. North Korea has made open and public threats against not only South Korea, but other nations as well. It seems to me that all you're saying is that bullies and hot heads should be permitted to arm themselves on the school yard.

Would you also have supported the World War II Japanese to have had nukes, too? And the Nazis, too?

Is that the basics of your argument or comment? 'Cause I'm not sure, exactly, what you're trying to say?

Baron Max

I liken that to supporting the right of a school yard bully to have the same or bigger weapons than the school yard monitors. North Korea has made open and public threats against not only South Korea, but other nations as well. It seems to me that all you're saying is that bullies and hot heads should be permitted to arm themselves on the school yard.

Would you also have supported the World War II Japanese to have had nukes, too? And the Nazis, too?

Is that the basics of your argument or comment? 'Cause I'm not sure, exactly, what you're trying to say?

Baron Max

It seems to me that the country that has been threatening the most and acting on threats is the USA.

Is you argument we should do somethinig about the bully? Start with yourself?

It seems to me that the country that has been threatening the most and acting on threats is the USA.

So your suggestion is to arm the rest of the world with nukes?

And aren't you one of those who keeps talking about taking guns away from people who are only wanting to protect themselves? If so, how can you reconcile those two ideas?

Baron Max

Why not? Tell me what's different now as opposed to the time of World War II? What's changed?


Baron Max
baron

how do you think an attack will pan out in the korean pensula.

As the consequences are quite grave i feel there must be another solution to this.

############
take care
zak

Moreover, if Kim Jung'il launches an attack (conventional or nuclear) within said 24 hours, the nuclear counter-attack would commence without warning.

Do you even know what nuclear weapons do?
The fallout would affect billions of people, for too long to come.

We have enough conventional weapons to destroy them with. No need to try and take out the biosphere, too.

Do you even know what nuclear weapons do? The fallout would affect billions of people, for too long to come. We have enough conventional weapons to destroy them with. No need to try and take out the biosphere, too.

So you'd suggest that we with North Korea with a conventional war, little guns and little bombs, and let hundreds of thousands of our troops die for perhaps years and years, because you're scared of nukes?

Baron Max

So you'd suggest that we with North Korea with a conventional war, little guns and little bombs, and let hundreds of thousands of our troops die for perhaps years and years, because you're scared of nukes?

Baron Max

Convention weapons != invasion.

or how about the old Us favourite bombing from 30000 feet up and firing cruise missles..

that way no troops die which will please baron and we stay conventional which will please ramon..(hopefully airpower and cruise missle may actually be able to do some real damage to key areas - but again we will ahve to wait and see i suppose)

Anyway baron i though t you hated all human life so what differences does it make to you anyway...

#######################
take care zak

Convention weapons != invasion.

So that thousands of our soldiers die needlessly?????

Baron Max

So that thousands of our soldiers die needlessly?????

Baron Max

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that your grasp of logic was so tenuous.

Carpet bombs. Cluster bombs. Artillery. ICBMs. We have plenty of conventional firepower to reduce their country to rubble without having to cover the globe in radiation.

Carpet bombs. Cluster bombs. Artillery. ICBMs. We have plenty of conventional firepower to reduce their country to rubble without having to cover the globe in radiation.

Didn't, couldn't do it in Afghanistan or Iraq .....'cause you mamby-pamby liberal assholes won't let us fight a real war ...you want our soldiers to die needlessly.

Baron Max

Zakariya04:

"I hope you are well and thank you for your thread"

I am indeed well. Yourself?

"what about the innocent Koreans who will die in such a nuclear exchange...

its not like they voted for Kim is it"

It is regrettable that anyone would have to be caught in the crossfire, but I see no way that the North Korean people can be spared nuclear flame outside of Kim Jung'il capitulating and surrendering his government to a US or an international force. Moreove,r in the long run as others have noted, more people would be saved cutting the head off the snake before its fangs grow too large to handle and its poison too toxic. If a few hundred thousand or millions of North Korean must be sacrificed, this must be so.

Didn't, couldn't do it in Afghanistan or Iraq .....'cause you mamby-pamby liberal assholes won't let us fight a real war ...you want our soldiers to die needlessly.

Baron Max

No, we had to send troops into Iraq and Afghanistan to stabilzie the country. We occupy Iraq, according to you neocons, to "take the fight to them," to "bring freedom and democracy to the region" and to "prevent Iraq from going into civil war" and to "get us some oil."

If all we wanted to do was break the North Korean regime so that it could no longer make nukes, all it would take would be a heavy bombing campaign from Russia, the UK and the US. We wouldn't even have to worry about "boots on the ground" if our goal was simply destruction.

Didn't, couldn't do it in Afghanistan or Iraq .....'cause you mamby-pamby liberal assholes won't let us fight a real war ...you want our soldiers to die needlessly.

Baron Max
hey Baron,

Just because the US could not defeat the afghan that is no shame... The russians could not do it nor the british about a century ago and nor could Alexander the Great - youi did not really expect that "military genius" Rumsfield would be able to beat the afghan did you???

And i cant actually remember what reaons bush gave to go to war with iraq in the end..

############

take care ZAK

Zakariya04:

"I hope you are well and thank you for your thread"

I am indeed well. Yourself?

"what about the innocent Koreans who will die in such a nuclear exchange...

its not like they voted for Kim is it"

It is regrettable that anyone would have to be caught in the crossfire, but I see no way that the North Korean people can be spared nuclear flame outside of Kim Jung'il capitulating and surrendering his government to a US or an international force. Moreove,r in the long run as others have noted, more people would be saved cutting the head off the snake before its fangs grow too large to handle and its poison too toxic. If a few hundred thousand or millions of North Korean must be sacrificed, this must be so.

Hi Prince james
I am well thank you how are you.

I read reports, (i can find them if you want) that saddam was willing to go into exile just before the invasion of 2003 - however we cAN NOT compare this Kim geezer to Saddam - Kim geezer is far worse

##############

Take care
Zak

And there you go, Zak, .....bringing out the tactics of the terrorists, huh? ...LOL!

Oh, Zak, you're now so obvious in your well-planned, hidden, sneaky tactics! It's so funny to watch now ...how so many people fall into your little web of deception, then are attack ferociously! ...LOL!

Baron Max

And there you go, Zak, .....bringing out the tactics of the terrorists, huh? ...LOL!

Oh, Zak, you're now so obvious in your well-planned, hidden, sneaky tactics! It's so funny to watch now ...how so many people fall into your little web of deception, then are attack ferociously! ...LOL!

Baron Max


Are we even reading the same posts?
There must be some small sprite inside your computer that fuzzes up the words people say so you get an entirely different meaning out of them.

Perhaps the sprite's in your head, messing up the interpretation... or maybe you like to polarize issues to the extreme, as it's easier for you to classify a monochrome world?

And there you go, Zak, .....bringing out the tactics of the terrorists, huh? ...LOL!

Oh, Zak, you're now so obvious in your well-planned, hidden, sneaky tactics! It's so funny to watch now ...how so many people fall into your little web of deception, then are attack ferociously! ...LOL!

Baron Max
My dear Baron

Stop trying to wind me up

I have no tacttics, i am just talking about these issues as i find it interesting to learn about other peoples views.
############

take care

zak

Are we even reading the same posts?
There must be some small sprite inside your computer that fuzzes up the words people say so you get an entirely different meaning out of them.

Perhaps the sprite's in your head, messing up the interpretation... or maybe you like to polarize issues to the extreme, as it's easier for you to classify a monochrome world?
Hi roman,

thank you for your post...

i do get puzzled as to why the baron compares my tactics to that of a terrorist...As i dont have a clue what a terrorists tactics are in the first place.

I think it comes down to the fact that isaid we agreed on a couple of things and the Baron could not bring himself to admit it.

###################

Take care

Zak

And there you go, Zak, .....bringing out the tactics of the terrorists, huh? ...LOL!

Oh, Zak, you're now so obvious in your well-planned, hidden, sneaky tactics! It's so funny to watch now ...how so many people fall into your little web of deception, then are attack ferociously! ...LOL!

Baron Max
THANKS Baron

I noticed the LOL - you are only having fun....

#################

take care Zak

The proper response, that would be in China's ball court right now, N. Korea is their dog, and it's up to them to use the choker chain to bring it back in control, or put it down.

The proper response, that would be in China's ball court right now, N. Korea is their dog, and it's up to them to use the choker chain to bring them back in control, or put it down.

I was wondering how China would take to the West dropping atomics on their doorstep....

The proper response, that would be in China's ball court right now, N. Korea is their dog, and it's up to them to use the choker chain to bring it back in control, or put it down.
Hi Buffalo,

i hope you are well and had a good weekend

China are in a bit of a situation as they too would not want loads of korean refugess across their border if things got out of control so you are right buffalo, China should be doing their upmost to keep this situation under control.

##############

take care Bufallo


zak

Buffalo Roam: The proper response, that would be in China's ball court right now, N. Korea is their dog, and it's up to them to use the choker chain to bring it back in control, or put it down.

China basically called it a 'brazen act' but called for other nations to 'calm down'. They were simply testing, something other nations do all the time. If the Bush administration hadn't thrown North Korea into the 'axis of evil' mix which they in turn used as an excuse for pre-emptive strikes then North Korea would have continued to allow UN inspections. North Korea didn't have anything to do with 9/11 yet they were thrown in for good measure. Before Bush's State of the Union address in 2002 no one was even remotely concerned about NK and NK wasn't concerned with us outside of the usual frosty relationship. We cannot expect to threaten soveriegn nations without strong reaction. They watched the US pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and listened as the US contemplates an invasion of Iran so of course they have their back up.

Axis of Evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Samcdkey:

"Not only that but they could easily retaliate by nuclear bombing Tokyo or Seoul."

The US has the technology to intercept North Korea's missile technology which is notoriously bad. Moreover, it is very unlikely they have more than a few weapons ready at this time, if any more than what they fired off today.

spuriousmonkey:

"accept that another country has nuclear capability?"

A brutal country with a partially insane leader and a willingness to commit massive murder on its own people? Are you seriously saying this ia good thing?

Baron Max:

"I liken that to supporting the right of a school yard bully to have the same or bigger weapons than the school yard monitors. North Korea has made open and public threats against not only South Korea, but other nations as well. It seems to me that all you're saying is that bullies and hot heads should be permitted to arm themselves on the school yard."

EXCEEDINGLY well spoken, my good man.

Roman:

"Do you even know what nuclear weapons do?
The fallout would affect billions of people, for too long to come."

Actually, a Hydrogen Bomb is both relatively clean and, ontop of that, a single detonation (or even a few) would not produce enough fall out to "affect billions of people", but maybe only a few million. Moreover, even thenwould the results of such be minimalized by the fact that nuclear fall out has a danger only for about three days to a week.

If what you said was true, billions of people would be irradiated in the present era, owing to the 50 years of above-ground nuclear tests of dozens of nuclear weapons, including the 50-megaton blast the Russians shot off.

"We have enough conventional weapons to destroy them with. No need to try and take out the biosphere, too. "

The nuclear option would provide a crippling blow that can prevent a counter attack. Faced with a conventional attack, they could level Seoul within hours.

"Convention weapons != invasion."

How then do we bring these conventional weapons to bear, then?

Zakariya:

"I am well thank you how are you."

I am doing well still, thank you.

"I read reports, (i can find them if you want) that saddam was willing to go into exile just before the invasion of 2003 - however we cAN NOT compare this Kim geezer to Saddam - Kim geezer is far worse"

Actually, the United States gave him this opportunity. He did not accept it.

Lucysnow, and they didn't see that what happened? If we decide it becomes in our interest to do something about them, what good will their pop gun do for them, they don't have a delivery system, and if they use it we don't even need to go nuclear to turn their country in to a smoking pile of rubble one step from the stone age, and we will not be the problem in this mix, the bigger problem's for N.Korea, will be S.Korea Japan, Russia, and China, in the first order of magnitude, and then the rest of the Pacific Rim Countries, Shorty is about to get his ass handed to him.

Zakariya:

"I am well thank you how are you."

I am doing well still, thank you.

"I read reports, (i can find them if you want) that saddam was willing to go into exile just before the invasion of 2003 - however we cAN NOT compare this Kim geezer to Saddam - Kim geezer is far worse"

Actually, the United States gave him this opportunity. He did not accept it.
Hummm

thanks James

Can anybody guess what happened to the "Free North Korea" website?
www.freenorthkorea.net

3. Diplomacy has become impossible. The entire purpose was to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. That has failed.

Why? Who's fault was that? It was working under Clinton, we had cameras in their nuclear facilities.

Actually, a Hydrogen Bomb is both relatively clean and, ontop of that, a single detonation (or even a few) would not produce enough fall out to "affect billions of people", but maybe only a few million. Moreover, even thenwould the results of such be minimalized by the fact that nuclear fall out has a danger only for about three days to a week.

If what you said was true, billions of people would be irradiated in the present era, owing to the 50 years of above-ground nuclear tests of dozens of nuclear weapons, including the 50-megaton blast the Russians shot off.

China and India are what, 2 billion people, 2.5? I imagine they would be upset about their people getting all radiated and stuff.

How then do we bring these conventional weapons to bear, then?

North Korea's not that big. Firing from South Korea and the ocean would put pretty much the whole country in range of bombs that aren't nuclear.

So your suggestion is to arm the rest of the world with nukes?

And aren't you one of those who keeps talking about taking guns away from people who are only wanting to protect themselves? If so, how can you reconcile those two ideas?

Baron Max

I'm suggesting america shuts is arrogant fucking face for a while and stops fucking up the world. And maybe they could fucking blame other people for the mess they are creating themselves.

clear enough?

Buffalo Roam: Lucysnow, and they didn't see that what happened? If we decide it becomes in our interest to do something about them, what good will their pop gun do for them, they don't have a delivery system, and if they use it we don't even need to go nuclear to turn their country in to a smoking pile of rubble one step from the stone age, and we will not be the problem in this mix, the bigger problem's for N.Korea, will be S.Korea Japan, Russia, and China, in the first order of magnitude, and then the rest of the Pacific Rim Countries, Shorty is about to get his ass handed to him

Actually I understand their response and considering what Chavez, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Chinese ambassador to the US have said of late the new trend leans towards opposing the West not capitulating. Personally I don't believe the US will go into NK. It's far too risky and the Chinese would never allow it, as a matter of fact I don't even think the Chinese opposed it behind closed doors. Remember China and NK are old bedfellows.

Spurious:I'm suggesting america shuts is arrogant fucking face for a while and stops fucking up the world. And maybe they could fucking blame other people for the mess they are creating themselves. clear enough?

'America! Fuck yea!!'

I actually agree with you on this.

Remember when the the Chinese ambassador to the US, Sha Zukang, basically flipped out and sent this message to America "It is high time to shut up!" during a BBC interview? He also noted that defense spending in China, with a population five times larger than the U.S., is a small fraction of the American military budget, which accounts for nearly 50% of global arms spending. "It is the U.S.'s sovereign right to do whatever they deem good for them, But don't tell us what is good for China."

China could slow or end it's delivery of oil and goods to N. Korea.

I don't understand why people like spurious are so venemously angry at America. Being opposed to the war on Iraq is understandable. But THIS is a little unreasonable, I think. America isn't fucking up the world. Maybe it's fucking up a couple of countries, but in my opinion it's not even doing that. You have to keep in mind that the only countries we have considered going to war with are those with semi-unstable dictators who are negligent and/or abusive to their own subjects.

This recent development with North Korea is a terrific example: a huge portion of the population is starving (there have been a couple of easily preventable famines in the country that the government more or less caused, I'm pretty sure), they have nearly no solid infrastructure, and yet they're going into a nuclear weapons program, which costs an ENORMOUS amount of money. It's completely negligent. Does the US overspend? Of course. They spend a shameful amount (though still not as much as European countries, by percentage). But at least they take care of their own people before they start blatantly wasting their money.

The first step the world should take before war is a embargoes. If China were to cut off supplies to North Korea (which would damage their economy a little, but the alternatives--other countries bombing or invading right off their borders, or less likely, being bombed themselves--are going to be much more unappealing to them), it would effectively destroy the economy there. Kim Jon Il would probably make out all right, since he can do whatever he wants, so it may not be too much of a deterrent (he obviously hasn't made too much effort to take care of his people), but I think it would be worth something.

After that, if there is a REAL threat, I have no qualms about nuking them. It's not a matter of not valuing life; it's a matter of valuing our lives over theirs (a perfectly natural and acceptable stance, I think, although it is a bit unfair) or a greater number of lives over a fewer number.

It's Bush's lack of statesmanship that led to this situation. It is, of course, also the fault of K.J.I., but however crazy he might be, he was willing to engage the US in direct talks, and we refused.

It's Bush's lack of statesmanship that led to this situation.

Oh, really? You don't think the Korea War had something to do with it at all? OR the thriving economy of the South compared to the starvation and poverty of the North had nothing to do with it? All this just up and started the minute President Bush took office??? Interesting, Spider, even for you!!

Direct talks between the US and North Korea was also nixed by China and Japan ....why aren't you letting them share some of the "blame"????

Baron Max

For those calling for an airstrike, it is highly possible that there would be US casualties anyways. Currently, 30000 US soldiers are based in Seoul and closer to the border. North Korea has a lot of ammunition aimed at Seoul. They can pretty much destroy the entire city. Yes, Pyongyang will be destroyed in the process too, but a crazed dictator facing the might of the US military would take extraordinary measures.

Plus, although the devices cannot be fired from a missile, North Korea does have other WMDs, such as chemical and biological weapons that CAN be fired from missiles. Japan is screwed, since North Korea can easily fire missiles on Japan. The one good thing is that North Korea cannot reach any part of the US yet. Oh, I forgot about Okinawa. That can be struck with missiles too.

Last, but not least, a heavy North Korean bomber can deliver a nuke (Enola Gay-style) and drop it on Seoul or even on the US base in Seoul. Seoul isn't far from the border. In fact, it's basically on the border.

In even the best case scenario, US troops will die. Millions in Korea will get killed. Possibly thousands will be killed in Japan. And that's just the best case scenario.

If we are willing to kill any and all North Korean soldiers before they hit the demilitarized zone, we would have little trougble shielding South Korea from the North Korean army. American air power can essentially make any given strip of land uninhabitable and unpassable for as long as is necessary. As long as we can place it on the map, we should have no problems killing it.

They would be stuck with purely long range missiles which, for them, are in rather low supply. This would be further confounded by the fact that they would get precisely one launching from even a hidden facility before we convert the area into polished glass. They have a million man army but it is almost completely light infantry. All they really have to their name in equipment is some horribly outdated fighters, 20 or so MIG-29s, and a couple barely seaworthy submarines.

Clockwood you been watching the news on afganistan?, the taliban don't have anything like the scale of the N.K army and yet they still persist to be a grave danger.

Proper response to North Korea nukes?

1) More intercontinental ballistic interceptor missiles all around North Korea to prevent nuke from hitting other countries.

2) Get out from Earth, let Koreans and Iranian nuke themselves. Move to Mars, a new home.

spidergoat, you forget that it was Carter who brokered a deal between Stumpy and Slick Willy to give them the Nuclear material and equipment to misuse to build the Bomb, 1994.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp

Clockwood you been watching the news on afganistan?, the taliban don't have anything like the scale of the N.K army and yet they still persist to be a grave danger.

Two different wars.

In the Middle East, we're trying to control territory. In the case of NK, all we want to do is break them so they can't manufacture nukes. Grinding infrastructure down would be easy.

Better we give them enriched uranium than they make it themselves. Part of the deal was that we be able to observe them. By your link, Clinton made a deal to give them proliferation-free technology but were unable to make another deal on ballistic missiles.

Under Bush, he suspended talks, diplomatically labeled them an "Axis of Evil", and raised the bar for any deals, brilliant.

I don't understand why people like spurious are so venemously angry at America. Being opposed to the war on Iraq is understandable. But THIS is a little unreasonable, I think. America isn't fucking up the world. Maybe it's fucking up a couple of countries, but in my opinion it's not even doing that. You have to keep in mind that the only countries we have considered going to war with are those with semi-unstable dictators who are negligent and/or abusive to their own subjects.

This recent development with North Korea is a terrific example: a huge portion of the population is starving (there have been a couple of easily preventable famines in the country that the government more or less caused, I'm pretty sure), they have nearly no solid infrastructure, and yet they're going into a nuclear weapons program, which costs an ENORMOUS amount of money. It's completely negligent. Does the US overspend? Of course. They spend a shameful amount (though still not as much as European countries, by percentage). But at least they take care of their own people before they start blatantly wasting their money.

The first step the world should take before war is a embargoes. If China were to cut off supplies to North Korea (which would damage their economy a little, but the alternatives--other countries bombing or invading right off their borders, or less likely, being bombed themselves--are going to be much more unappealing to them), it would effectively destroy the economy there. Kim Jon Il would probably make out all right, since he can do whatever he wants, so it may not be too much of a deterrent (he obviously hasn't made too much effort to take care of his people), but I think it would be worth something.

After that, if there is a REAL threat, I have no qualms about nuking them. It's not a matter of not valuing life; it's a matter of valuing our lives over theirs (a perfectly natural and acceptable stance, I think, although it is a bit unfair) or a greater number of lives over a fewer number.

How many countries has North Korea invaded in the past 50 years? How many democratically elected presidents have they deposed with CIA backed coups for their business interests? How many "military actions" has NK engaged in to make the world safe for communism?

Not only that but they could easily retaliate by nuclear bombing Tokyo or Seoul.

They would have nothing left to lose.

They don't have anything that will fit on a rocket as of yet. The thing they set off was a "device", much like the first test-unit set off in the US. It is not a mobile thing at all.

There is no threat of N. Korea setting off a bomb in another country for some time, but that will change one day.

I see the bigger threat as having already passed. Technical knowledge has already passed through many hands, which is bad for the future. And many have noticed just how easy it is to proceed along this path. The ghost of Chamberlain lives, as appeasement still seems to be the preferred method of handling global crisis. See our own Bush for an example of what determined action will bring you in the way of thanks. And see the legacy of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Kim for what bribery in the name of utopian delusions will get you.


Edit: I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I can't help but think that a ton of Republicans are a little giddy with the timing of this test. Voters are going to go to the polls thinking about Nukes instead of Pedophiles. If the Dems fail to recapture either house, I would be tempted to credit Kim with some idiotic timing on his part.

NK doesn't need nuclear weapons to destroy Seoul.

Kim doesn't want to destroy shit for the fun of it, anyway. He just wants power. Engaging him in "talks" and kowtowing to him at every turn is giving him exactly what he wants. If the world really wanted to get to him, they would ignore him. Treat him like the streakers at sports venues are treated by American media. They refuse to broadcast them, which has pretty much ended the practice here.

It isn't like he is a mad ideologue, like some Muslim extremists, that are willing to give up their lives and power for a noble cause. The biggest danger with Kim is that he will sell material and technology to the highest bidder. And that bidder might be a rogue extremist.

NK doesn't need nuclear weapons to destroy Seoul.

Oh, really? And just how would he do it?

Hell, Spider, it would take millions, perhaps billions, of conventional bombs to destroy Seoul. And let's not forget that he has to get them there ...we and South Korea have lots of SAM missiles, so even his bombers would have a helluva time even getting past the DMZ.

So tell us ....how would he destroy Seoul without nukes?

Baron Max

If the world really wanted to get to him, they would ignore him.

We did that just recently .....and then he set off the underground explosions!

Ignore him? You mean like a little kid is told to ignore the schoolyard bully? Like that?? Ignore the bully and he'll go away?

Surely you're not serious! I mean, do you know that little about life?

Baron Max

Oh, really? And just how would he do it?

Hell, Spider, it would take millions, perhaps billions, of conventional bombs to destroy Seoul. And let's not forget that he has to get them there ...we and South Korea have lots of SAM missiles, so even his bombers would have a helluva time even getting past the DMZ.

So tell us ....how would he destroy Seoul without nukes?

Baron Max
Artillery (http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1359.html)

North Korea has 2 artillery corps and 30 artillery brigades equipped with 120mm self-propelled guns, 152mm self-propelled mortars, 170mm guns with a range of 50 km, 240 mm multiple rocket launchers with a range of 45 km, and other heavy guns. North Korea has about 18,000 heavy guns. North Korea's 170mm Goksan gun and 240mm multiple-tube rocket launchers are the most powerful guns of the world. These guns can lob shells as far south as Suwon miles beyond Seoul. The big guns are hidden in caves. Many of them are mounted on rails and can fire in all directions. They can rain 500,000 conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. The US army bases at Yijong-bu, Paju, Yon-chun, Munsan, Ding-gu-chun, and Pochun will be obliterated in a matter of hours.

The US army in Korea is equipped with Paladin anti-artillery guns that can trace enemy shells back to the guns and fire shells at the enemy guns with pin-point accuracy. However, it takes for the Paladins about 10 min to locate the enemy guns, during which time the Paladins would be targeted by the enemy guns Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, a former US army commander in Korea, stated that the US army in Korea would be destroyed in less than three hours.

Spidergoat:

"Why? Who's fault was that? It was working under Clinton, we had cameras in their nuclear facilities. "

Who's fault was that? A short, rotund little man, that thinks himself a director and has a harem of women he routinely rapes as he throws away more food than he eats in a country where the people are picking weeds off the street in order to survive?

I'm fairly certain cockroaches are on the menu in North Korea to keep people from dying.

Roman:

"China and India are what, 2 billion people, 2.5? I imagine they would be upset about their people getting all radiated and stuff."

Impossible. The fall out cloud would not blanket that size of an area. The further the cloud travels, the more distributed, and less toxic, it is. By the time it reached INdia it would be hardly there at all, if even detectable.

"North Korea's not that big. Firing from South Korea and the ocean would put pretty much the whole country in range of bombs that aren't nuclear."

Whilst mountain-fortified artillery guns rained shells down on all our positions within 50 miles of the border, including on our naval ships.

Spuriousmonkey:

"I'm suggesting america shuts is arrogant fucking face for a while and stops fucking up the world. And maybe they could fucking blame other people for the mess they are creating themselves. clear enough? "

Typical biased anti-American nonsense. Rooted in an irrational hatred of the United States. Would you rather a Stalinist dictatorship which has done more to harm its people than any other country than the death of Pol Pot's Cambodia? Or a country which has basically defended every civilized nation for the last 75 years and kept the Soviets from painting the globe red?

Spidergoat:

"It's Bush's lack of statesmanship that led to this situation. It is, of course, also the fault of K.J.I., but however crazy he might be, he was willing to engage the US in direct talks, and we refused. "

You mistake North Korea for a sensible state that can be reasoned with. They have shown repeatedly that they will not live up to their end of the bargain.

terryoh:

"For those calling for an airstrike, it is highly possible that there would be US casualties anyways. Currently, 30000 US soldiers are based in Seoul and closer to the border. North Korea has a lot of ammunition aimed at Seoul. They can pretty much destroy the entire city. Yes, Pyongyang will be destroyed in the process too, but a crazed dictator facing the might of the US military would take extraordinary measures."

Sadly, we might have to sacrifice those young men (and women) for the cause. We shall salute their sacrifice when we honour their bodies.

"Plus, although the devices cannot be fired from a missile, North Korea does have other WMDs, such as chemical and biological weapons that CAN be fired from missiles. Japan is screwed, since North Korea can easily fire missiles on Japan. The one good thing is that North Korea cannot reach any part of the US yet. Oh, I forgot about Okinawa. That can be struck with missiles too."

Easily intercepted. Moreover, chemical weapons are extremely ineffectual. They are terror weapons and nothing more.

"Last, but not least, a heavy North Korean bomber can deliver a nuke (Enola Gay-style) and drop it on Seoul or even on the US base in Seoul. Seoul isn't far from the border. In fact, it's basically on the border. "

Extremely easy to intercept. We could cut to ribbons any of them.

"In even the best case scenario, US troops will die. Millions in Korea will get killed. Possibly thousands will be killed in Japan. And that's just the best case scenario."

It is better to cut off a leg than lose the body.

Clockwood:

"If we are willing to kill any and all North Korean soldiers before they hit the demilitarized zone, we would have little trougble shielding South Korea from the North Korean army. American air power can essentially make any given strip of land uninhabitable and unpassable for as long as is necessary. As long as we can place it on the map, we should have no problems killing it."

Precisely. Our air and naval fleets are capable of widescale destruction with conventional or small-scale tactical nukes of pretty much preventing any sort of retaliation within hours of the war's beginning. Of course, we'd have to basically attack their position as we launch our own nuke strike on Pyongyang (or massive carpet bombing) in order to assure this, but it can be done with relative ease.

RAW2000:

"Clockwood you been watching the news on afganistan?, the taliban don't have anything like the scale of the N.K army and yet they still persist to be a grave danger. "

Totally different type of fighting. That is guerilla warfare in a situation where we do not want to reduce our enemy to slag.

spidergoat, who are you James friggin Bond?, must be as his information cannot be confirmed unless you have a Level 4, Secret Clearance, as for the quality of shorty's weapons, that is a debatable point, and Paladin takes a whole lot less than 10 min. to do counter battery, back in Vietnam were could do counter battery in under 2 min. and the systems today are computer generated fire response.

spidergoat, who are you James friggin Bond?, must be as his information cannot be confirmed unless you have a Level 4, Secret Clearance, as for the quality of shorty's weapons, that is a debatable point, and Paladin takes a whole lot less than 10 min. to do counter battery, back in Vietnam were could do counter battery in under 2 min. and the systems today are computer generated fire response.

Buffalo is right a paladin needs 10 minutes if only one round of artillery is fired and the Paladin is the only unit factoring the travjectory. Even then 10 minutes is the outside. The units we have in South Korea could handle it in seconds not minutes.

Looks like it was a dud:
U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday.
U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.
"We're still evaluating the data, and as more data comes in, we hope to develop a clearer picture," said one official familiar with intelligence reports.
"There was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives." http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061009-115158-2477r.htm

Looks like it was a dud:

I think we and the international community, such as it is, should err on the side of caution, don't ya' think?

Baron Max

Hey buffalo,

If the north koreans were backed into a corner what do you think there tactics would be if they played the military card.

###############

take care
zak

If the north koreans were backed into a corner what do you think there tactics would be if they played the military card.

Zak, like many times and posts, you're saying and thinking that all wrong! No one but the North Koreans are "backing them into a corner"! They chose that route, no one forced them into any corner ....so don't start using that twisted fuckin' logic that you use to try to support the North Koreans!!

Baron Max

Zak, like many times and posts, you're saying and thinking that all wrong! No one but the North Koreans are "backing them into a corner"! They chose that route, no one forced them into any corner ....so don't start using that twisted fuckin' logic that you use to try to support the North Koreans!!

Baron Max
Dear Baron

Ok then if Kim Jung Il back themselves into a corner

And i dont support shorty!!! where o where have i ever said i do.

this is for the record i do not support Kim Jung Il

##################

Take care Zak

I think we and the international community, such as it is, should err on the side of caution, don't ya' think?

Baron Max


hi baron

yes this would be wise.

##########
take care
Zak

And i dont support shorty!!! where o where have i ever said i do. this is for the record i do not support Kim Jung Il

Don't worry, Zak, we'll soon see how you twist people's words around ...giving your true, actual, intent of supporting Kim ....without have to actually say so! It's called "twisting words", Zak, and you're pretty good at it even while it's a pretty nasty tactic.

Baron Max

Don't worry, Zak, we'll soon see how you twist people's words around ...giving your true, actual, intent of supporting Kim ....without have to actually say so! It's called "twisting words", Zak, and you're pretty good at it even while it's a pretty nasty tactic.

Baron Max

Dont worry Mr absolute, i know you have already judged me.. thank goodness other posters have the analytical skills to not just look at issues as black and white.

having said that in the case of Kim i cant think of one good thing to say about him or what he has done/ acheieved.
################

take care
Zak

NK has at best, a crude bomb, perhaps not even designed for a missile, but their action was provocative. KIJ is not a reliable person, by all accounts, but the truth, which I proved with evidence, is that his nuclear facilities were under our surveillance until 2003, after the Neo-Con takeover.

Much of the reason NK people are starving is that NK has built up it's conventional weapons to a high degree. I maintain that they are a formidable force to confront in a war, and have the capability to wipe out Seoul before we destroyed them.

They seem to have real energy problems.

http://members.aol.com/picpage506706407/images/satnkorea1.jpg

No lights?

Much of the reason NK people are starving is that NK has built up it's conventional weapons to a high degree.

Nope ...and certainly not to the degree that you suggest. Yes, he's added men to the army, but often it's men without even rifles to carry ...he depends on number of men charging and dying, the next man in line picks up the dead man's weapon and continues the charge! He doesn't care about his men!

The tanks and artillery is outdated by years and years! Ditto for even the military transport vehicles ...he'd have a helluva time even getting that many men to the battle front.

I maintain that they are a formidable force to confront in a war, and have the capability to wipe out Seoul before we destroyed them.

Impossible ....virtually impossible. Hell, Spider, it would be impossible to wipe out Seoul even if no one tried to defend it!! Seoul is a very, very big city, and it takes a lot of artillery shells and bombs to destroy a city.

Baron Max

They seem to have real energy problems.

Yeah, they do! Virtually all of their oil and gas comes from China. If China cuts them off, which has been suggested by the Chinese, then NK is going to be shit outta' luck, for sure.

Baron Max

Shorty isn't smart enough to realize that he is the one who is backing himself into the corner, and he don't have the brains, but he does have the ego, to pull the trigger, the only thing that we really can hope for is that the military has the brains, because they know the truth about their capabilities to blow Shorty's brain's out if he really try's to take them to war. What most people don't want to realize is that Shorty is a spoiled rotten kid, who's father indulged his every whim, and tantrum, and that is what we are dealing with today, and Lord help that area if he decides to throw a tantrum, the kicking and screaming and holding of breath will be Nuclear in size.

Shorty isn't smart enough to realize that he is the one who is backing himself into the corner, and he don't have the brains, but he does have the ego, to pull the trigger, the only thing that we really can hope for is that the military has the brains, because they know the truth about their capabilities to blow Shorty's brain's out if he really try's to take them to war. What most people don't want to realize is that Shorty is a spoiled rotten kid, who's father indulged his every whim, and tantrum, and that is what we are dealing with today, and Lord help that area if he decides to throw a tantrum, the kicking and screaming and holding of breath will be Nuclear in size.Do you refer to all East Asian males as "shorty" or is this a term easier for you to use than a reasoned political term?

We could call Abe Lincoln "Ugly" and Churchhill "fatty." FDR can be "cripple" and Jefferson could be called "slave rapist." Namecalling won't bring down the NK government BR.

Only those that fit the description, and deserve it. Genji are you trying to look stupid?

Only those that fit the description, and deserve it. Genji are you trying to look stupid?I'm no fan of the NK govt. It's just a bit embarrassing to see a man use 3rd grade terms to refer to a foreign leader that is Asian, lacking height, as most do. My pointing out your shortycomings hardly makes me look stupid. You do that to yourself quite well.

Genji, you recognize that I am talking about a sawed off little prick who doesn't deserve any respect, as a leader he is a total screw up, when he leads in the Style of the Great Leaders like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, then I will give him respect deserving of the title, until then he is Shorty, a pinched off piece of dog shit.

Genji, you recognize that I am talking about a sawed off little prick who doesn't deserve any respect, as a leader he is a total screw up, when he leads in the Style of the Great Leaders like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, then I will give him respect deserving of the title, until then he is Shorty, a pinched off piece of dog shit.Like him or no he has control over a tightly run nuclear nation facing off with the USA at the most militarized border on Earth. No news gets out and rarely do people get in, or out. The same criticisms could be made of all leaders we dislike, from Stalin to Kennedy. I admire his standing up to the US and it's occupation of South Korea. He has wrought far less destruction on the world than George W. Bush has. So whom would be the pinched-off piece of shit??

Shorty.

Shorty.Shorty is leader of a nuclear nation the US has feared for decades. What nuke nation do you rule? Mr Chips??

Genji, and what nation do you live in, turbine?

Until recently, it was the Soviet Union and China that America feared... acting through the avatar of North Korea. Now the crazed midget is running down our street with an AK-47 and he is moments away from figuring out how to take the safety off. How should America and, indeed, the rest of the world feel?

Until recently, it was the Soviet Union and China that America feared... acting through the avatar of North Korea. Now the crazed midget is running down our street with an AK-47 and he is moments away from figuring out how to take the safety off. How should America and, indeed, the rest of the world feel?Responsible??

Genji

Responsible??

Yes, act responsibly. The responsible thing would to take Shorty out.

Indeed. If it is our mess, we may as well be the ones to clean it up.
In whatever way is necessary.

Indeed. If it is our mess, we may as well be the ones to clean it up.
In whatever way is necessary.Would we be more successful than we were in Vietnam? Iraq? Whose kids will be on the front lines of your new war? I think we (The USA) should stay out of it and let the Korean people and the region resolve any percieved problems. Last time we were forced into a standoff. And now we both have nukes. Are the neocons ready to spill more Korean blood and American lives for....peace & security?

In both cases, we made the mistake of trying to hold enemy land. We couldn't tell friend from foe and ended up getting shot in the back of the head. A lot.

And, for American peace and prosperity and security, you don't even want to know what I would see done.

In both cases, we made the mistake of trying to hold enemy land. We couldn't tell friend from foe and ended up getting shot in the back of the head. A lot.

And, for American peace and prosperity and security, you don't even want to know what I would see done.I bet I know! Armchair Hawks are always as brutal as the enemies of America: You would kill all non-Americans and all non whites. Then you would kill all non Christians and nuke every country on Earth but the USA and her lapdog Israel. Yaaay! Freeeeedom at last! God Almighty Freeeedom at last!:rolleyes: No Thanx.

Screw religion, screw race, screw all such things. I'm neither white nor christian and my mom was a native born Cuban. As I said, I am a pragmatist.

Screw religion, screw race, screw all such things. I'm neither white nor christian and my mom was a native born Cuban. As I said, I am a pragmatist.But you seem to advocate policies in war that the Nazis used. That Imperial Japan used. How would that make you more righteous than them? NK's leader hasn't invaded a single country, hasn't meddled in US affairs and hasn't threatened anyone. Like him or not they have a right to nukes and of course testing. Not everything needs Washington's and Jerusalem's signature. He's a bad guy, far worse than Hussein. It's just the simple matter of realizing we can't do a Nazi blitz over NK. Filled with family from the south. There is a bond between the people's as there is between Miami Cubans and Cuba.

We should be putting pressure on China to do something about it themselves, making it clear that we will do anything we deem necessary to defend South Korea, Japan, and the rest of the Pacific Rim from North Korean nuclear or conventional attacks. Then we should send a bunch more naval squadrons into the Sea of Japan, and put them all on high alert.

We really shouldn't try and do anything about it ourselves, directly. We should be trying to force the Chinese into patrolling the East Asian beat.

Genji: Ah. Godwin's Law strikes again.

The Nazis also advocated the wearing of pants. Wearing pants does not make you a Nazi.
Blitzkrieg tactics have little to do with any nasty political or ideological aspirations. They are just a damn fine means to win a war.

But, since someone else would call me on it anyway, I should make note that there is a difference between Blitzkrieg tactics, which would count as the apex of manuver warfare, and what we were talking about. Manuver warfare involves fighting in such a way that one can force the enemy into defeat without utterly destroying them. It normally revolves around simply avoiding the bulk of their forces and striking at their vulnerable points and moving on before the enemy can react. While this is great, it wouldn't quite be playing into our strengths unless we could take out Kim and a hundred of his top goons in one fell swoop by such an action.

We did use it to good effect, however, when we took Iraq in a matter of a couple days with mostly a few tanks plus air support. But different goals mean different tactics.

Do you refer to all East Asian males as "shorty" or is this a term easier for you to use than a reasoned political term?
Namecalling won't bring down the NK government BR.
Poor Genji, there aren't many communists left, and everyone's picking on them! You once had the "mighty" Soviet Union as the standard bearer for communism, now you've got a five foot two nutjob who has run his country into the ground.

I think we'd all say "heil Hitler!" if resorting to "Nazi tactics" would rid the world of North Korea's menace.

Shorty isn't smart enough to realize that he is the one who is backing himself into the corner, and he don't have the brains, but he does have the ego, to pull the trigger, the only thing that we really can hope for is that the military has the brains, because they know the truth about their capabilities to blow Shorty's brain's out if he really try's to take them to war. What most people don't want to realize is that Shorty is a spoiled rotten kid, who's father indulged his every whim, and tantrum, and that is what we are dealing with today, and Lord help that area if he decides to throw a tantrum, the kicking and screaming and holding of breath will be Nuclear in size.

Hi Buffalo,

Ok the military acting against Kim would be good at least it gets rid of him, but who will be his replacement... lets just hope it is someone with a bit more sense.

Unfortunately we dont know the Military structure of NK so who knows whether this is even a possibility

#################
Take care
zak

Poor Genji, there aren't many communists left, and everyone's picking on them! You once had the "mighty" Soviet Union as the standard bearer for communism, now you've got a five foot two nutjob who has run his country into the ground.


You conveniently forgot the People's Republic of China with 1,315,844,000 citizens. A country on which the USA is totally dependent.

And of course Cuba with 11 million people.

You conveniently forgot the People's Republic of China with 1,315,844,000 citizens. A country on which the USA is totally dependent.


Sure, the U.S is dependandant on coat hangers and plastic Christmas ball's.

Sure, the U.S is dependandant on coat hangers and plastic Christmas ball's.


Don't be ignorant. Where do you think your electronics are produced?

Do you own an iPod? Made in china.

The question isn't what the 'proper' response to North Korea is. More accurately, the question is:
"WHAT can America do about it?"

And the answer is: Nothing!

HAHAHAAH! I burst out laughing when media stations showed pleased North Koreans, acting defiantly in response to 'international' (ergo. the U.S, their puppets, and nations who are reliant on the U.S) outrage.

Eat shit, America. Your had your chance to bring down the North Korean regime, and you fucked it up. Moan and bitch all you want, that won't make Kim's nukes disappear. It must sting to know that a 5 foot 'insane yellow man' (or so you call him) in a 3rd world country extended the middle finger to the most 'powerful' police nation of the world! :D

What must sting worse is that now that Kim has some leverage, America will have to actually take him seriously (and hold to their promises) when they next engage in diplomacy with him. No more backstabbing or treaty breaking on a whim.
SEK SEE!

No, i dont have one. Do i need one?

No, i dont have one. Do i need one?

You have a computer?

The question isn't what the 'proper' response to North Korea is. More accurately, the question is:
"WHAT can America do about it?"

And the answer is: Nothing!

HAHAHAAH! I burst out laughing when media stations showed pleased North Koreans acting defiantly in response to 'international' (ergo. the U.S, their puppets, and nations who are reliant on the U.S) outrage.

Eat shit, America. Your missed your chance to bring down the North Korean regime, and you fucked it up. Moan and bitch all you want, that won't make Kim's nukes disappear. It must sting to know that a 5 foot 'insane yellow man' (or so you call him) in a 3rd world country extended the middle finger to the most 'powerful' police nation of the world! :D

What must sting worse is that now that Kim has some leverage, America will have to actually take him seriously (and hold to their promises) when they next engage in diplomacy with him. No more backstabbing or treaty breaking on a whim.
SEK SEE!

he he, the world need's moron's with Nukie's.

You have a computer?

Mac's could entirely be made in the U.S, couldn't they?

The should be made there anyway.

9 Minutes elapsed:

John for the win, cha ching.

Mac's could entirely be made in the U.S, couldn't they?

I think you lack the technology.

People's Republic of China, is a monarchy that uses communist principles to hold power, it is no different today than it was under the Dynasties, except the Court now calls it self communist.

And how is north korea different? Your redneck buddy claims it's a communist country.

Surely Kim is not as bad as that guy from Iran

Sorry i am a first time poster - is there any types of etiquete to these forums

Surely Kim is not as bad as that guy from Iran

Sorry i am a first time poster - is there any types of etiquete to these forums

Surely he is.

Surely Kim is not as bad as that guy from Iran

Which guy from Iran, the President? Or the guys who actually have power....

so that small guy with the beard ahmendijad,we dont need to worry about him - is kim worse then him...
what i was led to beleive that ahmendijad had all the power and was making all the threats about wiping Poor israel off the map

so that small guy with the beard ahmendijad,we dont need to worry about him - is kim worse then him...
what i was led to beleive that ahmendijad had all the power and was making all the threats about wiping Poor israel off the map

You watch FOX news a lot I gather?

i watch cnn is that no good.

You seem so one-dimensionally well informed.

I read a really good book by robert fisk - i am not sure whether i believe all of what he said in his book- i love reading books

The proper response to Kim Il is to throw the book at him.

But not the bible.

not my robert fisk book surely

Surely li'l Kim can't be so bad, after all he looks so cute and cuddly. I'd like to put him on my mantlepiece.

he does not look as bad as ahmenidjad does with that beard of his- they are both really smal

If you threw a book at him, you'd squash him. That wouldn't be fair. Just because he's miniscule.

he does not look as bad as ahmenidjad does with that beard of his- they are both really smal


Yeah, but that beard is a right give-away. He's obviously EEEvil.

I say, let's smother them with love!

I say nuke Seoul before the N. Koreans do, that will annoy them.

I say nuke Seoul before the N. Koreans do, that will annoy them.

good thinking. Let's take away the only threat they have!

And then smother them with love.

Poor Genji, there aren't many communists left, and everyone's picking on them! You once had the "mighty" Soviet Union as the standard bearer for communism, now you've got a five foot two nutjob who has run his country into the ground.The USSR wasn't Communist since 1924. Do you really believe Stalin adhered to Marxist-Leninist principles and strategies of Party building?? No, there are no Communist countries in the world. But Communists exist all over the world and we are winning elections. We are inside the USA and every other country. I would have the NK leader killed myself. Farther from Communism than China even. Sorry to burst your bubble but Communism is much healthier and more alive without the poisonous and traitorous blanket of Stalinism. The NK leader's height is no matter to me. Was 5 foot 1 Theiu of South Vietnam someone you would suck off or would the Shorty tag be the term you would use?? When conservatives prove yet again they have no plan, no policy and no strategy for another problem all they can do is use racial epithets and shrouded racist comments about the height of Asian people. Congrats Mad Ant! You just graduated from 2nd Grade! Yaaaaay!!:p :rolleyes:

How about this for a really new idea!

President Bush goes on TV and says
"We arent bothered by North korea, because they are not of interest to us. I'm away back to bed."

The UN secretary general says
"Its regrettable that they want to join the nuclear club, but hey, what do I care, it would be really childish of them to nuke someone"

And the rest of the world just carries on, ignoring the baby in teh corner having a tantrum. Remember, babies are actually quite rational, if you ignore them they'll learn to not cry all the time.


(I admit, there is a possibility that this particular baby may just decide to throw the mother of all tantrums, but then they wouldnt live much longer after that, and personal survival is quite important to babies.)

How about this for a really new idea!

President Bush goes on TV and says
"We arent bothered by North korea, because they are not of interest to us. I'm away back to bed."

The UN secretary general says
"Its regrettable that they want to join the nuclear club, but hey, what do I care, it would be really childish of them to nuke someone"

And the rest of the world just carries on, ignoring the baby in teh corner having a tantrum. Remember, babies are actually quite rational, if you ignore them they'll learn to not cry all the time.


(I admit, there is a possibility that this particular baby may just decide to throw the mother of all tantrums, but then they wouldnt live much longer after that, and personal survival is quite important to babies.)Interesting idea but the Bush mafia NEEDS NK to divert attention away from their perverted Congressmen. They also NEED war and romors of war to continue building their rightwing BigBrother State. We must be kept afraid and no one does that better than Americans. So I wonder why the chickenhawks are sooo askeert of NK? Is it the leader? Looks like it at this forum at least! SHIVERS!

With the announcement that North Korea has succesfully detonated an atomic bomb, the following actions ought to be taken:

At the earliest possible time (within a few hours from right now) president Bush - as well as perhaps president Putin and Jintao, prime minister Blair, and various others - should announce their intention on the dismantling of the North Korean government by any means necessary. In essence: They must affirm that if North Korea's government does not capitulate and surrender its sovereignty within 24 hours, and peacefully allows a UN (or simply national) forces into their borders, that Pyongyang will be struck with a hydrogen bomb. Moreover, if Kim Jung'il launches an attack (conventional or nuclear) within said 24 hours, the nuclear counter-attack would commence without warning.

1) This would kill a bunch of innocent women and children living in Pyongyang. You can bet that many more would be moved there within that 24 hours. Possibly trebling the number of civilian deaths.

2) I doubt that the South Korean relatives of those killed would be in favor of such action.

3) There is no way in hell that Russia and China are going to let some UN lackeys drop a nuke on NK.

4) I have read that North Koreans have experimented with many forms of biological warfare. It was suggested that NK has agents in all major cities of the World. Think of the packed megalopolises of Asia. What if each week a new virulent flu virus is released into major subways. What if other viruses are to follow? If they have made serious biological weapons, and as we genetically engineered a virulent virus (many years ago) to kill rabbits, it certainly is possible - the death toll in major cities like NY, Beijing, London and Tokyo could be catastrophic? Not to mention if they simply release various chemicals into the subways.


Just some things to consider.
MII

You conveniently forgot the People's Republic of China with 1,315,844,000 citizens. A country on which the USA is totally dependent.

And of course Cuba with 11 million people.

China, communist? Not any more.

One hell of a lot closer to communist than capitalist, anyway.
The Party still controls damn near every facet of life and business over there.

The USSR wasn't Communist since 1924. Do you really believe Stalin adhered to Marxist-Leninist principles and strategies of Party building?? No, there are no Communist countries in the world. But Communists exist all over the world and we are winning elections. We are inside the USA and every other country. I would have the NK leader killed myself. Farther from Communism than China even. Sorry to burst your bubble but Communism is much healthier and more alive without the poisonous and traitorous blanket of Stalinism. The NK leader's height is no matter to me. Was 5 foot 1 Theiu of South Vietnam someone you would suck off or would the Shorty tag be the term you would use?? When conservatives prove yet again they have no plan, no policy and no strategy for another problem all they can do is use racial epithets and shrouded racist comments about the height of Asian people.
Genji, are all Asians short? Did I, or anyone except you, say all asians were short? I went to school with a guy who lived in China until he was eight or so and he was over six feet tall. So I don't see how calling someone short is racist.

Now Mr. Ill is short, and he is a nutjob. But even with a nuke, I don't think he's much of a threat, unless he slips al Qeda a nuke or two.

Mountainhare:

Actually, we have something we can do to North Korea. It's called "nuke them till their glow".

One h-bomb on Pyongyang would kill the two million citizens, destroy the government, and remove from North Korean hands the only place where there is even some electricity in the entire country. With the chain-of-command so destroyed, the troops near the DMZ would be easy pickings for massive cluster bombings, napalm runs, artillery strikes, naval bombardment, MOAB strikes, and if necessary, gas bombs.

North Korea doesn't have a prayer against the "sleeping giant".

Michael:

"1) This would kill a bunch of innocent women and children living in Pyongyang. You can bet that many more would be moved there within that 24 hours. Possibly trebling the number of civilian deaths."

An admittedly sad consequence, but also inevitable if North Korea doesn't capitulate. For whereas I can sympathize with the North Korean people, I must also recognize that their existence is a support for said government, that the people "get the government they deserve" through not revolting, and that if they were smart, they'd leave the capital now, even at the threat of their lives.

If possible, I would hope to not have to kill them. That is why we must ask Kim Jung'il for a complete surrender of his and his government's powers and acceptance of occupation.

If they die, we will mourn them as innocents, but we will have saved many more in the process. Occasionally must one do such things.

"2) I doubt that the South Korean relatives of those killed would be in favor of such action."

Sadly, we must tell them that it is "tough luck", although I'd suggest not in such inflammatory tones. We can do nothing about it. Our hand has been forced.

"3) There is no way in hell that Russia and China are going to let some UN lackeys drop a nuke on NK."

Actually, yes there is. Two reasons: 1. Russia and China are not pleased at all that Kim Jung'il is pursuing nukes and are all ready on the United States' and UN's side ont he matter. 2. If they attempted to stop it through nuclear force, the United States would respond MADly. Any counter attack on the United States would inevitably result in a complete and utter destruction of the majority of life on this planet, either through nuclear fire directly, or through nuclear fallout indirectly. We might even vengefully send some of our Cobalt-salted bombs (we likey have a few) to make sure the radiation persists in many areas for much longer than normal fall out.

"4) I have read that North Koreans have experimented with many forms of biological warfare. It was suggested that NK has agents in all major cities of the World. Think of the packed megalopolises of Asia. What if each week a new virulent flu virus is released into major subways. What if other viruses are to follow? If they have made serious biological weapons, and as we genetically engineered a virulent virus (many years ago) to kill rabbits, it certainly is possible - the death toll in major cities like NY, Beijing, London and Tokyo could be catastrophic? Not to mention if they simply release various chemicals into the subways."

Actually, chemical attacks are extremely ineffective, as are biological attacks. They are more terror-inspiring than they are deadly. Biological weapons, for instance, depend on A LOT of factors, and almost all plagues have treatments available for them. Moreover, it would be far better to live through any of these attacks, no matter how bad, than to suffer a nuclear confrontation on a full scale with North Korea.

I hope NK takes out Seoul and Tokyo if the Prince James Holocaust came to fruition. :D

Genji:

Whereas I'd bemoan the loss of two beautiful, capitalist cities, I'd recognize the necessity of their destruction.

Actually, we have something we can do to North Korea. It's called "nuke them till their glow".

Why would you do that unless you thought they would attack us? They build nuclear weapons primarily as a defense, and deterrent against an attack that we are unlikely to precipitate.

You would break the precedent of no nuclear weapons being used in anger since WWII.
You would subvert the principles of non-proliferation.
You would infect most of Asia and other nations with fallout, maybe even the US.
Seoul would be destroyed, and probably much of South Korea.

Perhaps unilateral talks (which Bush refuses), should come before unilateral action. The rest of Asia would not agree to this.

Spidergoat:

"Why would you do that unless you thought they would attack us? They build nuclear weapons primarily as a defense, and deterrent against an attack that we are unlikely to precipitate. "

Owing to the fact that their cruel insanity and massive aggressiveness is a threat to the world all ready? Moreover, they have constructed this bomb in contradiction to US and UN policy and it is a matter of national and international honour to crush them underfoot for such insolence.

If we do not destroy them now, moreover, we'd have to face decades of a threat of North Korea with nuclear weapons. Better to cut the head off the beast now whilst we can and before they have a bunch fo things.

"You would break the precedent of no nuclear weapons being used in anger since WWII."

Nuclear weapons were made to be used in times when there is a need. MAD stopped that need from ever arising for 50 years. MAD is not in play in a state with one or two bombs.

"You would subvert the principles of non-proliferation."

How so? It would enforce them through destroying a nuclear state.

"You would infect most of Asia and other nations with fallout, maybe even the US. "

Not at all, actually. Hydrogen bombs are immensely clean and on top of that, the small amount of fall out would be hardly a problem outside of the immediate area. Similarly, it would not be a problem after three days.

"Seoul would be destroyed, and probably much of South Korea."

Very unlikely. Once Pyongyang is gone, the attack on South Korea would likel not even commence before the positions were massively assaulted by US and South Korean troops and air strikes. Seoul would suffer, surely, but it would recover.

"Perhaps unilateral talks (which Bush refuses), should come before unilateral action. The rest of Asia would not agree to this. "

Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia are at least partially open to the idea, I'd imagine. Moreover, Asia doesn't have to agree with it. No one can stop the US in regards to such things.

Moreover, they have constructed this bomb in contradiction to US and UN policy and it is a matter of national and international honour to crush them underfoot for such insolence.

The US and GB rule the world?


If we do not destroy them now, moreover, we'd have to face decades of a threat of North Korea with nuclear weapons. Better to cut the head off the beast now whilst we can and before they have a bunch fo things.

Since when has become genocide a democratic value?


Not at all, actually. Hydrogen bombs are immensely clean and on top of that, the small amount of fall out would be hardly a problem outside of the immediate area. Similarly, it would not be a problem after three days.

Yes, and the US would leave Iraq after saddam was removed. It seems to me Americans lack the ability to project the world outside the USA. The world does not end at the border you know. The political fallout would be immense. A fallout you cannot survive despite your delusions of grandeur.



Very unlikely. Once Pyongyang is gone, the attack on South Korea would likel not even commence before the positions were massively assaulted by US and South Korean troops and air strikes. Seoul would suffer, surely, but it would recover.

yes, nagasaki and hiroshima recovered too. Only 280,000 people dead. It isn't much compared to the 650,000 dead Iraqis. USA the greatest killing machine of the modern times. How proud they are of their flag and nation. What a farce.


Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia are at least partially open to the idea, I'd imagine. Moreover, Asia doesn't have to agree with it. No one can stop the US in regards to such things.

Just nuke Korea and see what will happen. The world will cripple you economically. If you honestly think Europe, Russia, Japan and China will let this pass you are insane.

Just nuke Korea and see what will happen. The world will cripple you economically. If you honestly think Europe, Russia, Japan and China will let this pass you are insane.

I have this nagin suspision that the EU will just kinda bend over a say "oh well, it happed, lets move on". Ofcause this is only based on what i see in the spineless Danish politicians.

Kunax, you are correct, and if they would try, the rebound to there economy would be even more sever, than to us. As you have said when ever has the European Community ever shown any spine.

Community != politicians.

Politicians are just our outwards face, one that can be changes if necesarry.

Indeed politicians are spineless but this would be an excellent opportunity to shaft the US under the protection of Russia and China.

Business is business.

We have used nukes once and it was an immense success, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. I'd like to see us do it again.

Hi jeff,

i hope you are well and thank you for your post but i fail to see how if we nuke korea it will save lives

############
take care zak

FUCK it we should take Kim out with a fukcing cruise missle in the head and a sucide bomber can throw himself at the oval office to get rid of the other cunt!!!

We have used nukes once and it was an immense success, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. I'd like to see us do it again.

No it didn't.

FUCK it we should take Kim out with a fukcing cruise missle in the head and a sucide bomber can throw himself at the oval office to get rid of the other cunt!!!

There are always other '*****s' next in line.

The best thing to do is to leave North Korea alone.

That way, it'll stop being paranoid of the US, which will lower its military spending, and reinvest on agriculture with the help of the South.

Not leave it alone. Slowly coax it into a better dimplomatic relationship. Give aid for nothing in return. More and more. Then give it the equivalent of the Marshall plan. Make it prosperous.

The regime explodes with a force of a nuke.

problem solved.

spuriousmonkey:

"The US and GB rule the world?"

Actually, yes, they do. But the UN does not consist solely of the United States and Great Britain

"Since when has become genocide a democratic value?"

It is not genocide to launch a nuclear attack against a nation's capital and bomb to smitherines their military force. The annihilation of the North Korean people is not the stated nor intended goal of this policy. Merely the destruction of the North Korean government and military. I would not suggest extending the bombardment to villages, farmlands, or any other places. In fact, the civilian populace outside of Pyongyang ought to remain untouched by anything but the aftereffects of bombing and nuking Pyongyang and the army.

However, were it necessary to kill off the North Korean people in hopes of mitigating the threat of North Korea? It might well be justified.

"Yes, and the US would leave Iraq after saddam was removed. It seems to me Americans lack the ability to project the world outside the USA. The world does not end at the border you know. The political fallout would be immense. A fallout you cannot survive despite your delusions of grandeur."

The United States remains in Iraq in order to assure the long-term security of the Iraqi people underneath a government that works. Iraqis are ill prepared to face the dedicated insurgency which has more than simply anti-American aims of kicking Americans out of the nation. We'd replace one threat with another if we did not continue in our endeavours.

The United States would have.....what fall out exactly from whom politically? From the South Koreans they saved from deathly fear? From the Japanese who are considering attacking? From China which will be able to regain its nuclear dominance of East Asia? Of Russia who will not have to face a crazy nuclear power on its Eastern border?

It would sure as Hell stop a lot of tinpot dictators from considering nuclear weapons. Iran would certainly shut up right quick. As would Libya if they were considering it.

Where would the United States lose in this situation?

"yes, nagasaki and hiroshima recovered too. Only 280,000 people dead. It isn't much compared to the 650,000 dead Iraqis. USA the greatest killing machine of the modern times. How proud they are of their flag and nation. What a farce."

The 650,000 dead Iraqis caused mostly from insurgents that target their own people in systematic terrorism campaigns that slaughter women and children with impunity? Yes, this is the fault of the Americans who are attempting to restore law and order in a country ravaged by these guerillas. I mean, that is the only rational answer to it, surely!

Damn Americans! What with your attempts to bring a country out of the clutches of a terrible despot!

Moreover, Seoul would probably NOT suffer that many casualities. If the air-campaign was great enough, it would suffer perhaps a few tens of thousands dead. The damage would be mostly economic, but even then would recovery be possible. And even if it did, it is much superior to be freed of the threat of nuclear war with North Korea where multiple bombs could be brought to bear against South Korea.

"Just nuke Korea and see what will happen. The world will cripple you economically. If you honestly think Europe, Russia, Japan and China will let this pass you are insane. "

The world will cripple the United States economically? I find this a laughable assertion. Japan is stridently pro-American on this issue and know that their economic livelyhood is dependent on a surviving partnership with the United States. China, without American imports, would collapse beneath the weight of its own system by year's end. Russia is growing and growing strong, but would suffer a severe lack of growth owing to the trade relations with the United States. Only Europe would be able to keep up the embargo for a while and even then, it would not serve Europe's interests to cut off from the American market. Trans-Atlantic trade is lucrative and mutually beneficial, hence why it is robust.

The world would shrug their shoulders. North Koreans are ants. Americans the ant-eaters.

Zakariya04:

"FUCK it we should take Kim out with a fukcing cruise missle in the head and a sucide bomber can throw himself at the oval office to get rid of the other cunt!!!"

Whoa, where did that come from? You're usually quite the nice fellow.

Facial:

"The best thing to do is to leave North Korea alone.

That way, it'll stop being paranoid of the US, which will lower its military spending, and reinvest on agriculture with the help of the South. "

Why should we leave off the pressure when we can make them explode? The country's very existence is a threat. Lessening its decline is suicidal.

Spuriousmonkey:

"Not leave it alone. Slowly coax it into a better dimplomatic relationship. Give aid for nothing in return. More and more. Then give it the equivalent of the Marshall plan. Make it prosperous.

The regime explodes with a force of a nuke."

Actually, the Cold War showed that the way to peacefully destroy a country is not to give it aid, but to force it to expenses it cannot handle, rob it of victories abroad and domestically, and undermine it in anyway possible. Of course, always under the threat that if they go truly crazy, the time will come for an open confrontation which they cannot hope to survive, although in the Soviet example, the United States was also in risk of dying off, as well as the majority of the world and every nation state.

Aid for nothing in return, making it prosperous, would only extend the insanity by decades.

What we ought to consider is seeing whether it would be possible to either taint, dam, or otherwise obstruct their water supplies. Scarcity of water wedded to famine would be quite an excellent means of lessening their effectiveness on a broad scale.

Note that the proper voice you should hear that post in is the voice of either Penn from Penn and Teller or Lewis Black from the Daily Show. While I agree with these statements, the words just don't sound right coming from someone without a vein on the side of their head throbbing in frustration at a world gone mad.

Toady_James:

Mountainhare:

Actually, we have something we can do to North Korea. It's called "nuke them till their glow".

Oh, can you now? No doubt you can nuke whoever you want in your wet dreams, but the rest of the world lives in this place called 'reality'. And in reality, America cannot use nukes against a defensive North Korea. It knows this. And more importantly, North Korea knows this. Which is why the North Korean regime is wiggling its collective ass at Bush and his cronies.

Quite simply, Toady James, there is nothing you blustering, arrogant, meddling Americans can do about North Korea's nukes. Bitch and whine as much as you want. America gambled by attempting to cause the collapse of Kimmy's regime. It lost.

YOU LOSE!

EAT SHIT, IMPERIALIST!!!

With the announcement that North Korea has succesfully detonated an atomic bomb, the following actions ought to be taken:

At the earliest possible time (within a few hours from right now) president Bush - as well as perhaps president Putin and Jintao, prime minister Blair, and various others - should announce their intention on the dismantling of the North Korean government by any means necessary. In essence: They must affirm that if North Korea's government does not capitulate and surrender its sovereignty within 24 hours, and peacefully allows a UN (or simply national) forces into their borders, that Pyongyang will be struck with a hydrogen bomb. Moreover, if Kim Jung'il launches an attack (conventional or nuclear) within said 24 hours, the nuclear counter-attack would commence without warning.

The reasons for the above are abundantly clear. But to list but a few to explain my rationale:

1. North Korea is an unstable government lead by a despot whose horrors rivals those of the most fiendish men would have ever walked the Earth. He is a Mao for a new century.

2. North Korea has completely destroyed the restrictions placed upon it by the United Nations. Without the United Nations becoming a joke (or moreso than it is) we must see to it that North Korea is destroyed.

3. Diplomacy has become impossible. The entire purpose was to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons. That has failed.

4. Giving North Korea anything more than the brief period of time will allow them to potentially arm themselves with more nuclear weapons. This would make a counter-attack possible that would endanger Seoul, Tokyo, Beijing, and various other population centres.

5. Other countries, such as Iran, must be shown that the only result of going nuclear in the face of world opposition is annihilation, not a bargaining tool.

6. This ought to be an international effort, as North Korea poses a truly global threat. The responses from China have been very promising in this regard.

So, let's get this straight....to punish them for owning a nuclear weapon you nuke them? What kind of message does that send out? You can't have one nuclear weapon, but it's fine for the most belligerent contemporary nation on earth to have more than 10,000? It's fine for the nation that indiscriminately nuked the shit out of 300,000 women and children in WWII (and firebombed many more) to have as many WMDs as it likes, but Iran can't even pursue nuclear power?

Communist states always have great problem with farmers, the government’s collective farms tend to produce less than the population grows in small clandestine plots, back yards, etc.

Thus, I will drag out the idea I suggested years ago to solve the Vietnam Conflict (don't dare call it a war, as US never losses wars). I again suggest:

Fill several squadrons of B52s with live chickens. Fly low over the country and push them out.

The locals will collect them when they reach the ground. The government will try to confiscate the chickens take them to the collective farms, etc. There is a good chance that the soldiers ordered to do this will join with the people to over throw the regime. (If does not work the first time, try again until it does.)

I will dig out my old T shirt, which says:
on front: "Make love, not War"
and on the back:
"Drop chickens, Not bombs."

Well, its a start. Not as much as I would like and probably pretty ineffective, but its a start.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/14/nkorea.sanctions/index.html

Personally, I think we should just stop all trade from any nation and starve them out.... at the very least.

It might be ineffective, 'cause it will hurt the people more than the leadership.

China has expressed concern that because the proposed sanctions fall under Section 7 of the U.N. Charter, which makes them binding on all member states, they could lead to a blockade or even military action to enforce them.

Talk about nightmare scenario for China. The fact that they voted for this resolution probably indicates how pissed off they are with NK.

Mountainhare:

"Oh, can you now? No doubt you can nuke whoever you want in your wet dreams, but the rest of the world lives in this place called 'reality'. And in reality, America cannot use nukes against a defensive North Korea. It knows this. And more importantly, North Korea knows this. Which is why the North Korean regime is wiggling its collective ass at Bush and his cronies."

And who, pray tell, will stop her from doing such? The United States has both the power, the purpose, and can muster the will to do so. Once that last aspect of our planning falls into place, North Korea would be a hole glowing bright in the dark. And the world? Would shrug her shoulders - as who really cares about North Korea, anyway? - and the next day things would go back to normal.

Moreover, if the UN is to have any teeth at all, to be any sort of remotely effective organization, it must support a vicious reprisal for North Korea bucking against her for years and years. Indeed, the UN must take this situation to make a stand, or forever fail in her missions.

But of course, this post, written in the style of a "reasoned adult" must fall on deaf ears. After all, children rarely are capable of comprehension on a high level.

G. F. Schleebenhorst:

"So, let's get this straight....to punish them for owning a nuclear weapon you nuke them? What kind of message does that send out? You can't have one nuclear weapon, but it's fine for the most belligerent contemporary nation on earth to have more than 10,000? It's fine for the nation that indiscriminately nuked the shit out of 300,000 women and children in WWII (and firebombed many more) to have as many WMDs as it likes, but Iran can't even pursue nuclear power"

"Belligerent"? In what way is the United States "belligerent"? The United States defends her interests abroad against powers which have directly threatened it (Afghanistan) and indirectly threatened it (Iraq) and which have caused numerous problems with the UN (both) and it is "belligerent"?

Moreover, if you want to place the moral blame game on ANY of the actors of World War II, I'd begin with the Russians, then move to the Japanese...Frankly, no nation was