POL- N. Korea aims missles at Hawaii?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lungs

Nevermind, then.

It would be nice to have a strong Japanese military in the region though. But if they don't want it, they don't want it.

The fact that they haven't had to pour a ton of their GDP into defense spending has sure made their economic growth much easier!

[Mustang]

If North Korea is going to fire a missile at Hawaii, now would be the time. With the Michael Jackson death in the news, I'm not sure anyone would notice.

[lungs]

Isn't Kim Jong-Il a big fan of Michael Jackson? Our best chance at peace may have been destroyed yesterday.

[Autumn]

That may be all that's been holding him back all these years. Watch out Los Angeles!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Autumn

That may be all that's been holding him back all these years. Watch out Los Angeles!

Meh. Global warming will cause California to fall into the ocean soon anyway. Let him expedite the process and take out a bunch of paparazzi (sp?) along with it.

[GrantDawg]

I may be completely mistaken, but my limited understanding of the Asian Pacific is that there is one thing that all the nations of the area can agree on is their hatred of the Japanese. Imperial Japan had a brutal hold over many areas of Asia less than 100 years ago. A militarized Japan would not be welcomed by far more countries than just NK. I believe that there are areas under South Korean, Chinese and Russian control that Japan still claim as theirs. With a strong military, they might just be tempted to regain control of those areas.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Meh. Global warming will cause California to fall into the ocean soon anyway. Let him expedite the process and take out a bunch of paparazzi (sp?) along with it.

NO NO NO you have it wrong. An earthquake will make California fall into the ocean. Global warming would only drown out the first couple miles of coast.

[Autumn]

Time to snatch up some prime (soon to be) beachfront property in Nevada. The perfect plan ...

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

(picks self up off floor)

Yeah, I'm going to go with the 'entirely wrong' comment as being accurate.

Trust me. No one wants the US to back away from the role of enforcer more than the US. With that said, if you're going to offer up France and the UN as the new enforcers, I'd say most of the US would rather remain the enforcer.

What because France didn't want to get involved in the Iraq invasion? Was that really such a bad decision on their part?

I think many of the problems both the U.S. and U.K. have with other countries is in some part because they are so heavy handed. That is why both are so resented, rightly or wrongly.

Maybe France are too far the other way, but whats worse? The U.S. is seen a bully by many nations. The "You can't have any nukes" attitude - coming from a country that is loaded. It really doesn't hold water does it. Its easy to see why other countries have a problem with that.

A UN force respresents a means of enforcement which effectively takes the likes of the U.S. and U.K. off the hook because its by definition a united force.

[PilotMan]

The way that I see it. The leadership of the country knows that Kim Jong-Il's days are numbered. They know he is ready to keel over and die any minute. They have already announced his successor, and they want him to go out with strength and with the country at a high point in international prestige as they see it.

This is the perfect opportunity for them to change leadership, while maintaining the illusion of a strong government during the leadership change. The new leader will have an easy path to follow and the government can present a seamless transition.

[PilotMan]

Well I think that France's decision was based more on their illegal trade with Iraq and their desire to see Saddam stay in power to keep that deal working.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Hammer

What because France didn't want to get involved in the Iraq invasion? Was that really such a bad decision on their part?

I think many of the problems both the U.S. and U.K. have with other countries is in some part because they are so heavy handed. That is why both are so resented, rightly or wrongly.

Maybe France are too far the other way, but whats worse? The U.S. is seen a bully by many nations. The "You can't have any nukes" attitude - coming from a country that is loaded. It really doesn't hold water does it. Its easy to see why other countries have a problem with that.

A UN force respresents a means of enforcement which effectively takes the likes of the U.S. and U.K. off the hook because its by definition a united force.

If the UK wants to step in as an enforcer, so be it.

As far as France and the UN go, yeah, let's not go there. Their level of corruption and underhanded dealings make the US government look good, which is no small feat in my estimation. The Iraq situation is only a VERY small piece of that pie.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Hammer

The "You can't have any nukes" attitude - coming from a country that is loaded. It really doesn't hold water does it. Its easy to see why other countries have a problem with that.

You're not serious with that comment are you?

I mean, yeah, maybe North Korea and Iran have a problem with the international community (and it's the international community, not just the U.S.) not wanting them to have nukes, but most of the civilized world are OK with the idea of unstable and/or fundamentalist regimes not having access to nuclear weapons.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You're not serious with that comment are you?

I fear he's serious with all his comments.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lungs

Are there still restrictions on Japanese military strength from WW2? If so, lift them.

I don't think China or Russia will let you do that. China, in particular, is tired of getting their rear ends handed to them by a little island for the better part of 2000 years. You can try to force their hands by letting it happen, but then changes happen on their terms and not yours.

SI

[Hammer]

You guys are just looking at it from your point of view, thats the problem. Look at it from theirs. Any country has as much right to defend itself as much as the U.S. You can't tell them to stop their nuclear program, if you have nukes yourself. That simple. You wonder why they resent the U.S. telling them, with all the weapons they have....especially after they have been throwing their weight around.

I know its tough to look at this from a neutral perspective if your American. But really, unless you do, well, thats what causes the ill feeling ultimately. The resentment your country, and mine, faces.

At the risk of repeating myself, the answer is to step back and let the UN handle the situation. One country, no matter how powerful, simply can't do it. It won't be accepted.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Hammer

At the risk of repeating myself, the answer is to step back and let the UN handle the situation. One country, no matter how powerful, simply can't do it. It won't be accepted.

At the risk of repeating myself, anyone who consider an organization as misaligned and corrupt as the UN capable of being the enforcer in any capacity has lost his marbles.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I might be entirely wrong, but I sometimes wonder if Americans in general realise the capabilities of their allies, such as France and the UK.

French jokes aside...I don't think it's an underestimation of "capability" as it is a matter of whether they are inclined to act. The UK, in general, tends to be lumped into the US on these matters IMO. So, even when stating "the US needs to act"...the reality is always "the US/UK will act".

I really don't think the U.S. should continue as the worldwide enforcer, I love Obama's approach. If the UN and not the US is the enforcer, I think it will be better for everyone concerned.

I think you'll find most Americans in agreement about not being the enforcers (or the world's policemen).

What I think you're overlooking is the political expediency of the US allies' (not so much the UK or Australia, but France, Germany, and countless others outside of Europe) political leaders to play both sides of the fence. Bush was a great uniting target for this. Ignoring any corrupt relationships for the moment, these leaders could very conveniently get the US (and UK) to do all the dirty work while they placated to their voting public the notion that the US is the "big bully" and looking to "expand its empire". Now that the US is (nearly) incapable of backing up everybody else's veiled threats any longer(and subsequent backpeddling to bash the US government)...we'll see what happens. Brilliant strategy by Obama.

I suspect what we'll actually see is that countries like France & Germany, Japan & S-Korea will begin taking the lead on Iran & NK (respectively) due to being more regional issues for them.

I guess all of that is to just say that...I think the "real" diplomacy happens behind the scenes...and the US government under Bush was fine with playing "good cop, bad cop" moreso than Obama is. Don't read that as a ringing endorsement for Bush...but I think it's a bit shallow-sighted to listen to all the rhetoric out there and draw simple conclusions that the US bullies everybody (whether by military or economic force) without their consent or interests being aligned.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Hammer

You guys are just looking at it from your point of view, thats the problem. Look at it from theirs. Any country has as much right to defend itself as much as the U.S. You can't tell them to stop their nuclear program, if you have nukes yourself. That simple. You wonder why they resent the U.S. telling them, with all the weapons they have....especially after they have been throwing their weight around.

Nukes are not defensive weapons...

Oh and the UN can kiss my ass anyday.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Nukes are not defensive weapons...

I would disagree with this. I think that, for the most part, they are defensive weapons. We're all fucked if somebody decides that they aren't, actually.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I would disagree with this. I think that, for the most part, they are defensive weapons. We're all fucked if somebody decides that they aren't, actually.

Well I meant in the context of actual use. In the context of having them they are defensive, because you can use the fact that you have them to your advantage to protect yourself.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Hammer

You guys are just looking at it from your point of view, thats the problem. Look at it from theirs. Any country has as much right to defend itself as much as the U.S. You can't tell them to stop their nuclear program, if you have nukes yourself. That simple. You wonder why they resent the U.S. telling them, with all the weapons they have....especially after they have been throwing their weight around.

When the "leader" (dictator, president, supreme ruler, etc.) of a sovereign nation continually announces their desire to see another group of people on the planet removed...this draws hesitation (from the WORLD) to allow them to "defend" their "right" to do so.

I would also argue that the world (or US, take your pick) doesn't typically object to such things flippantly. Countries like India, China, & Pakistan also have such weapons...and while the US may not like it...there isn't much room to object for similar reasons that you've outlined above. But putting Iran and NK in that group is moral relativism at it's worst. Do you also believe that yelling "fire" in a movie theater doesnt have consequence when there is no fire?

If you want to discuss nuclear arms reduction by everybody...that's a different story.

[Mustang]

Hammer doesn't believe this stuff. He is just getting his name out there so we notice that it is his birthday tomorrow.

Well played.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

As long as Hammer doesn't hurt 'em, he's fine by me.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

When the "leader" (dictator, president, supreme ruler, etc.) of a sovereign nation continually announces their desire to see another group of people on the planet removed...this draws hesitation (from the WORLD) to allow them to "defend" their "right" to do so.

I would also argue that the world (or US, take your pick) doesn't typically object to such things flippantly. Countries like India, China, & Pakistan also have such weapons...and while the US may not like it...there isn't much room to object for similar reasons that you've outlined above. But putting Iran and NK in that group is moral relativism at it's worst. Do you also believe that yelling "fire" in a movie theater doesnt have consequence when there is no fire?

If you want to discuss nuclear arms reduction by everybody...that's a different story.

The way I read it, you guys are arguing different points.

Yours (and others) are basically: "Does the rest of the world want NK or Iran to have nukes", to which the response is a fairly resounding "No" with a few exceptions, namely NK, Iran, and a few groups who wouldn't mind them doing their dirty work

Hammer seems to be arguing that it looks kindof hollow coming from a country that has nukes, saying "no" to others is just bullying. He's right- I mean, think if you're in NK. It looks a lot simpler there- "they can have nukes, why can't I"? I'm not saying they are right, but these are two party negotiations (admittedly with one party led by a crazy guy). I mean, it's like when you asked your parents why you couldn't do something and they said "because" or "I told you so"- unless you can give a good reason, you could understand why the other party is going to just turn up their headphones and either ignore you or flat out tell you to "go screw off".

I don't think he's advocating for NK getting nukes, but just trying to put their perspective out there.

SI

[PilotMan]

I don't fear nukes. Tom Clancy proved that you can shoot them down with a reprogrammed missile from a missile-cruiser. But that you should have them explode in front of the missile, instead of when it reached the heat signature.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't think he's advocating for NK getting nukes, but just trying to put their perspective out there.

SI

I don't think he's advocating that either...but the point I'm making is that the court of world opinion is strongly (not just passively) against them acquiring nukes....whether that be fair or unfair.

I understand why NK & Iranian (governments) believe they are entitled to nukes...but on issues of concern to the world their argument is only as valid as what the rest of the world finds "acceptable" and is willing to do about it. The "not acceptable" criteria is admittedly highly fluid from country to country, but does tend to include murderous rhetoric of groups of people.

I guess I just see it as "the world has an opinion" and the "world is willing to do x about it". This is derived from the collective belief systems of the world...always has and (conceivably) always will be the way the world handles disagreement.

So...if the world woke up tomorrow and believed that all countries that "house or allow the free practicing business of McDonalds restaurants" needed to be destroyed...and the US refused to believe as such...assuming the rest of the world were willing to fight for this ideal or concept, then we would have one heckuva battle to fight. Thankfully (or maybe not), the world is not that insane (yet).

So...to me...speculating about how NK or Iran "feel" about the issue is completely useless. The (mainly) Western world has a collection of beliefs which do not align with the idea of NK or Iran having nukes...for some tangible and other intangible reasons.

[Hammer]

I don't think he's advocating that either...but the point I'm making is that the court of world opinion is strongly (not just passively) against them acquiring nukes....whether that be fair or unfair.

Making this point is what got me started on this topic if you read back.

Where I seem to differ is that I really don't think an aggressive, arrogant attitude towards NK serves a purpose here. You tell them what to do, they will want to do the opposite. The U.S. doesn't have the authority to do that, it isn't there place to do so. Thats what pisses a lot of people off in a lot of countries. I include my own country in that, the U.K. are just as guilty as the U.S. in many ways.

The UN isn't an ideal answer, obviously there are some fundamental issues but they can be worked on. However I feel its the only real option.

As the world becomes a smaller place, and countries develop technologies its all the more important us like minded countries stick together. The next Pearl Harbour, and I believe it could happen in time, could be far more devastating if we continue to try to govern by force as we have in the past.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Where I seem to differ is that I really don't think an aggressive, arrogant attitude towards NK serves a purpose here. You tell them what to do, they will want to do the opposite. The U.S. doesn't have the authority to do that, it isn't there place to do so. Thats what pisses a lot of people off in a lot of countries. I include my own country in that, the U.K. are just as guilty as the U.S. in many ways.

I think the difference here is that while neither you nor I are privy to the "real" conversations which occur between countries & their leaders...you presume that the US and/or UK tend to make aggressive actions without the approval of "allies" and like-minded countries because these same "allies" do not readily stand up and publicly announce their approval to the world.

Where I differ is that I don't necessarily believe the face value of anti-US (or anti-UK) rhetoric thrown about by these same "allies" due to the fact that these countries are all run by elected leaders who require re-election. In fact, I would dare say that there is likely much more agreement than disagreement behind the scenes...with most of the disagreement being how much they will go along and how vocal they will be publicly. I don't think that is an overly far-fetched concept due to the nature of politics in democracies & republics. Do they always agree? No, I don't think that's the case...but I do think that the image of the US (and UK) "bullying" or "imposing their will" on poor little NK or Iran or Iraq as the world's greatest propaganda campaign since WWII. If this were actually the case...I suspect NK & Iran would have many, many more "allies" of their own.

[Hammer]

Oh I agree with regards to the propaganda angle you discuss. Thats always going to be an issue. Again coming back to my point, the fact remains the US and UK really don't have any right to take the job on as enforcers. Its not there place to do so. It gives a solid foundation for any propaganda.

On the other hand, if its the UN doing the enforcing that propaganda isn't on such a firm footing to begin with. I'm sure they will still try to play the angle, but its far more difficult when you have a united front rather than a couple of countries with a history of sticking their noses in and flexing their muscles.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Oh I agree with regards to the propaganda angle you discuss. Thats always going to be an issue. Again coming back to my point, the fact remains the US and UK really don't have any right to take the job on as enforcers. Its not there place to do so. It gives a solid foundation for any propaganda.

On the other hand, if its the UN doing the enforcing that propaganda isn't on such a firm footing to begin with. I'm sure they will still try to play the angle, but its far more difficult when you have a united front rather than a couple of countries with a history of sticking their noses in and flexing their muscles.

Uh, we're not enforcers in this case. North Korea has announced that they will fire a warhead at one of our states. Iran's president has stated that he wants to bomb one of our allies off the face of the earth. That's not enforcing, that's self-defense and standing with an ally. The US isn't the ones ratcheting up the rhetoric here. We'd love to see them shut up and stop threatening us.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Hammer

You guys are just looking at it from your point of view, thats the problem. Look at it from theirs. Any country has as much right to defend itself as much as the U.S. You can't tell them to stop their nuclear program, if you have nukes yourself. That simple. You wonder why they resent the U.S. telling them, with all the weapons they have....especially after they have been throwing their weight around.

I know its tough to look at this from a neutral perspective if your American. But really, unless you do, well, thats what causes the ill feeling ultimately. The resentment your country, and mine, faces.

At the risk of repeating myself, the answer is to step back and let the UN handle the situation. One country, no matter how powerful, simply can't do it. It won't be accepted.

Are you Neville Chamberlain's grandson by any chance?

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Uh, we're not enforcers in this case. North Korea has announced that they will fire a warhead at one of our states.

I understood they have tested nuclear weapons, but they have announced they will actually fire a warhead? Is that really the case?

It sounds like what you watch on the news is a lot different over there. Someone is having the facts misrepresented to them.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Time to snatch up some prime (soon to be) beachfront property in Nevada. The perfect plan ...

Too late. Lex Luthor has already beat you to this...See Superman The Motion Picture.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I understood they have tested nuclear weapons, but they have announced they will actually fire a warhead? Is that really the case?

It sounds like what you watch on the news is a lot different over there. Someone is having the facts misrepresented to them.

Have you read any of the news online?

north korea missile - Google News

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I understood they have tested nuclear weapons, but they have announced they will actually fire a warhead? Is that really the case?

It sounds like what you watch on the news is a lot different over there. Someone is having the facts misrepresented to them.

Uhhhh, they've threatened to strike Hawaii. You're making me look intelligent. Most on this board would tell you that's no small feat.

[Hammer]

Really, there is no need to be rude about it Mizzou. I'm not in the same country as you, all that has been reported here is that Japan has stirred things up, and the U.S. has made some speculation on NK's intent. No word that NK has announced they are going to fire a warhead at the U.S.

I'm reading your links Dan. Which one reports on NK's intention to fire at the U.S.?

I'm aware of speculation from Japan and the U.S., but thats far different from a direct threat of intent from N.K. Please point me in the right direction, I'm having trouble finding it.

[Hammer]

Well I've read the links Dan posted. Where is this threat from N.K. that they are going to skrike Hawaii???

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I understood they have tested nuclear weapons, but they have announced they will actually fire a warhead? Is that really the case?

They have announced they will "retaliate" if the US and/or allies try to "violate their sovereignty" by enforcing UN sanctions of searching suspected cargo ships.

UK report
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | North Korea warns of retaliation

Canadian report
North Korea threatens military strike against South Korea

It sounds like what you watch on the news is a lot different over there. Someone is having the facts misrepresented to them.

The Hawaii-vicinity test missile is based primarily on "intelligence reports". I suppose if you blankedly dismiss intelligence agencies, it is your purview to do so...but apparently it is not dismissed by the US Seceratary of Defense, Robert Gates.

US report, sourced from Japanese intelligence originally
N. Korea May Fire Missile Toward Hawaii - CBS News

I don't think these reports are conflicting, in general, nor do I think they convey "North Korea is planning to launch missile strikes tomorrow for fun at the US, SKorea, and Japan". But what it does indicate is an unequivalent response to S Korea supporting, and US/Allies enforcing, "UN Sanctions". NK ratcheting up rhetoric in response to a strawman "attack or invasion by the US" just further confirms the "non-defensive" intentions of the NK leadership's intentions...which is (IMHO) to continue creating world crises for the purposes of blackmailing the world and getting economic aid....rather than to use their resources internally to create such wealth and prosperity. Hence why they pick topics and issues that will purposely involve the US.

Why the US gets involved is because the regional US allies request this help(and we maintain presence in these countries due to similar obligations to these allies), or they will begin developing their own nuke arms to deter NK's unfound "defensive posturing"**. This arms race is not something China desires either, so hence why the US and China get involved, due to obvious levels of influence each has in the region. So...suggestiong the US "pokes it's nose in things" is completely missing the bigger picture. Just because this is easy and simple to understand as a concept, does not make it so.

** - If NK truly believed it had a reasonably warranted need for such elevated defensive reasons...wouldnt it make more sense for them to employ the UN via China (or even just China outside of the UN) to publicly proclaim sanctions and consequences if the US takes such "aggesssion" on NK. Of course...this is again not done in favor of propaganda campaigns to blackmail the world into giving them economic benefits that they refuse to diplomatically(and peacefully) pursue.

[Hammer]

It seems our news is the same afterall, its how we interpret it thats different.

No one is denying there is a big problem here. The danger is making more of it than is there. Speculation really is just that, speculation.

You make some very valid points, but I still can't see the direct threat of nuclear strike that Mizzou mentioned.

You might read into the word "retaliation" that is what they mean, but again, thats speculation. Thats thinking the worst. Its easy to get into the them and us mentality, and it seems to me your struggling to see this from a neutral perspective. To me they are just posturing, trying to stand up to an obviously more powerful country and not lose face doing so.

I'm not trying to defend this nutcase, don't get that idea. But lets try to get the facts clear. Threatening "retaliation", and an unsolicited nuclear attack are 2 entirely different things.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Hammer

You might read into the word "retaliation" that is what they mean, but again, thats speculation. Thats thinking the worst. Its easy to get into the them and us mentality, and it seems to me your struggling to see this from a neutral perspective. To me they are just posturing, trying to stand up to an obviously more powerful country and not lose face doing so.

I'm not trying to defend this nutcase, don't get that idea. But lets try to get the facts clear. Threatening "retaliation", and an unsolicited nuclear attack are 2 entirely different things.

A threat from a country has to be considered in the context of what they are capable of. Now that NK has nuclear weapons, threats from them have to take that nuclear capability into account. Are they likely to use nuclear weapons if the U.S. intercepts that warship and inspects the cargo? Unlikely, but not inconceivable - we're not talking about the most rational of world leaders here.

Certainly they are posturing, but the question is how rational are they? How far would Kim go to not "lose face"? Risk the existence of his country?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I'm not trying to defend this nutcase, don't get that idea. But lets try to get the facts clear. Threatening "retaliation", and an unsolicited nuclear attack are 2 entirely different things.

This is not an interpretation of the word "retaliation"...these are the words from the release from the NK state news agency (with bolded part in context).

Originally Posted by BBC Article

"If the US and its followers infringe upon our republic's sovereignty even a bit, our military and people will launch a one hundred- or one thousand-fold retaliation with merciless military strike," said a commentary published by state news agency KCNA.

This is the unequivilent strawman painted by NK leadership. One has to define NK's definition of "infringement of sovereignty" to truly understand the meaning.

It isn't a question of neutrality of view in this...there is no such thing unless you believe all forms of government are wrong...and that all societies should return to despotism (or anarchy, etc.). Because short of that...you either believe in your society's (a) methodology to resolve conflict and issue for the common good, (b) you believe in leveraging your resoucres (both collective and individual) to accomplish common good...or (c) you believe in using both when necessary. All countries and all people do this...so neutrality of view is (of course) always through the eyes of the viewer's view of "acceptable rulesets". So trying to understand the NK view is not necessary, due to the belief that the outcome is worse for the common good...and based on NK's track record of disregard for it's own citizens well-being. I don't quite understand why this isn't inherently obvious.

The question you should be asking is..."Does NK leadership exhibit a reasonable contention for nuclear weapons, and if so, what are the consequences and fallout of such actions?" The world doesn't believe they have reasonable grounds to such contentions, but even if they did, does not believe the fallout and consequences (i.e. resulting Asian arms race) makes the NK contention "worthwhile or necessary for NK's sovereignty". This is of course, judgmental...this is what leadership is charged to do...make judgments.

[sterlingice]

Does anyone actually believe North Korea would actually launch a nuke in any but an extreme circumstance (i.e. us setting foot on their soil, etc)? And, if so, does anyone at all genuinely believe they have the means to do it?

I just don't get why everyone is taking this so seriously. I get that it's nukes and they're talking about aiming them at us. But with their missile and nuclear technology, we're probably talking about less than 00.0001% chance of it working and that's even if they were willing to do it.

I mean, how is this anything more than the kid in the schoolyard who thinks he's all that when it comes to fighting, going around boasting and saying he could beat Mike Tyson back in the 80s. Sure, he might have been the local tough guy, but he would get his clock cleaned by the best fighters in the school if he challenged them. And, if somehow he ran into craz-- Iron Mike, he'd wet his pants and just never utter a peep about fighting him. They're just all talk to show off locally.

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Hammer

No one is denying there is a big problem here. The danger is making more of it than is there. Speculation really is just that, speculation.

I disagree. I think history has proven that the real danger has been underestimating your enemy's intentions. Obviously you don't want to skew too far from perfect when assessing your enemy, but the trick is nobody knows where perfect is. So should we overestimate or underestimate their desire for war? Lots of factors go into that. Being one of the top 3 or 4 nations on the planet in hostile rhetoric (and the ability to back it up) has proven (in recent history) to be a good sign of bad things to come.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Does anyone actually believe North Korea would actually launch a nuke in any but an extreme circumstance (i.e. us setting foot on their soil, etc)? And, if so, does anyone at all genuinely believe they have the means to do it?

I just don't get why everyone is taking this so seriously. I get that it's nukes and they're talking about aiming them at us. But with their missile and nuclear technology, we're probably talking about less than 00.0001% chance of it working and that's even if they were willing to do it.

I mean, how is this anything more than the kid in the schoolyard who thinks he's all that when it comes to fighting, going around boasting and saying he could beat Mike Tyson back in the 80s. Sure, he might have been the local tough guy, but he would get his clock cleaned by the best fighters in the school if he challenged them. And, if somehow he ran into craz-- Iron Mike, he'd wet his pants and just never utter a peep about fighting him. They're just all talk to show off locally.

SI

I would be more concerned about NK perfecting nukes and ballistics and selling the technology (or finished products) to nations willing to bomb Israel.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I mean, how is this anything more than the kid in the schoolyard who thinks he's all that when it comes to fighting, going around boasting and saying he could beat Mike Tyson back in the 80s. Sure, he might have been the local tough guy, but he would get his clock cleaned by the best fighters in the school if he challenged them. And, if somehow he ran into craz-- Iron Mike, he'd wet his pants and just never utter a peep about fighting him. They're just all talk to show off locally.

SI

I can only speak for my own opinion...but it isn't that NK is likely to launch nukes at anybody. To your analogy...it would be that same kid boasting silly rhetoric but deciding to hit the weakling kid in the corner because he cant take on the big guys.

S Korea and Japan are the 2 that need be most concerned...these are US allies and may get the brunt of NK's military chest-pounding in order to blackmail us (the US & other wealthy countries) into doing what they want. I don't think that's a very far-flung idea to think that NK might be inclined to launch a missile or 2 over Japan or into s Korea to show their intentions. This does not even account for the potetnial for NK to sell their nuke technology to other countries which can be considered "not-aligned" with US/Allies interests.

The alternative view of "let NK have nukes because we have them so we're just hypocrites" arguement is not that we invade or launch some sort of attack...I'm just pointing out that ignoring such rhetoric is not wise. We (the collective world) have been down the path of blowing off rhetoric in the past from leaders with much less capability. I think taking this rhetoric into account when determining sanctions and action is quite necessary to ensuring a reasonable standard of resolution and diplomacy in the future, when other situations arise.

[EagleFan]

Let's flashback to 1939:

France (aka: Hammer?): Please Marshal Rydz-Smigly do not mobilize your troops. Ignore that Germany has amassed troops at your border, there is still a diplomatic solution. You are being tricked and bullied by the UK into believing that Germany is a threat.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Let's flashback to 1939:

France (aka: Hammer?): Please Marshal Rydz-Smigly do not mobilize your troops. Ignore that Germany has amassed troops at your border, there is still a diplomatic solution. You are being tricked and bullied by the UK into believing that Germany is a threat.

Hey, I already called him Neville Chamberlain's grandson. No fair calling him France!

[Hammer]

Its not smart to pidgeon hole people EagleFan/Cam, you don't know me. Don't pretend you do. Don't put words in my mouth. Read ALL of my posts, before making judgements. I am the one discussing the possibility of a Pearl Harbour attack earlier in this thread. I don't underestimate the consequences of what could happen, my concern is the best way to avoid that scenario and not to unduly aggravate the situation.

With Russia and China appearing onside the U.S. just needs to step back. Thank goodness Obama is in office. I completely agree with the defensive measures the U.S. have taken to this point, but really they must leave it there. The old tact really can't work any longer, there are too many powerful countries in the world.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Its not smart to pidgeon hole people EagleFan/Cam, you don't know me. Don't pretend you do. Don't put words in my mouth. Read ALL of my posts, before making judgements. I am the one discussing the possibility of a Pearl Harbour attack earlier in this thread. I don't underestimate the consequences of what could happen, my concern is the best way to avoid that scenario and not to unduly aggravate the situation.

With Russia and China appearing onside the U.S. just needs to step back. Thank goodness Obama is in office. I completely agree with the defensive measures the U.S. have taken to this point, but really they must leave it there. The old tact really can't work any longer, there are too many powerful countries in the world.

I've not put words in your mouth, I have read all your comments, and I feel completely comfortable with my judgment of your foreign policy philosophy.