POL- N. Korea aims missles at Hawaii?

[DanGarion]

Nuke or no nuke, if they launch a missile at the US, that is an attack on the US and thus is means for retaliation.

[rowech]

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.

And if they do send a missle in Hawaii's direction but then send it into the ocean just before getting "too close"? Do we wait for everyone else then? Do we have to wait until one actually hits us?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Thank goodness Obama is in office.

Yeah, Britain has proved to be a great judge of what a good leader is of late. I'm guessing Obama would look good compared with who Britain elected.

[Klinglerware]

Not sure why French military capability is so summarily dismissed. If you look at the record, France actually has a rather interventionist foreign policy. Even in recent years, the French have shown quite a willingness to utilize it's long range military power projection capabilities when it suits their interests. And actually, the French are probably even worse than the Americans when it comes to aligning with other nations before they do use military force.

I guess that's probably where the disconnect lies--the political interests of even democracies do not necessarily coincide. I think that differences in policy worldview also have some influence here: the French still tend to view the world under a strict realpolitik lens (so they will make decisions overwhelmingly on traditional interest and capability calculi), while American foreign policy has been increasingly influenced by an ideas-based theoretical worldview since the end of the cold war, culminating in the Bush II administration decision-making style where rational interests were still considered, but perhaps not as an overriding factor as it had been in years past.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, Britain has proved to be a great judge of what a good leader is of late. I'm guessing Obama would look good compared with who Britain elected.

We did not vote for him. He was appointed PM after the election and has led his party to historic polling lows.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

We did not vote for him. He was appointed PM after the election and has led his party to historic polling lows.

And who appointed him? The people the majority voted for.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rowech

And if they do send a missle in Hawaii's direction but then send it into the ocean just before getting "too close"? Do we wait for everyone else then? Do we have to wait until one actually hits us?

Are you willing to sacrifice Seoul over a conventional missile that didn't hit the U.S.?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Are you willing to sacrifice Seoul over a conventional missile that didn't hit the U.S.?

I'm more than willing to sacrifice Pyongang, Hamhung, Chongjin, Nampo, Sinuiju, Wonsan, Phyongsong, Sariwon, Haeju, Kanggye, Kimchaek, Hyesan, Kaesong, and Songnim. At least for starters. Well more accurately that's what the NK need to know they're sacrificing if they launch so much as an M-80 in the general direction of Hawaii.

But the question that really matters is whether the Chinese are willing to sacrfice Beijing over North Korea.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm more than willing to sacrifice Pyongang, Hamhung, Chongjin, Nampo, Sinuiju, Wonsan, Phyongsong, Sariwon, Haeju, Kanggye, Kimchaek, Hyesan, Kaesong, and Songnim. At least for starters. Well more accurately that's what the NK need to know they're sacrificing if they launch so much as an M-80 in the general direction of Hawaii.

But the question that really matters is whether the Chinese are willing to sacrfice Beijing over North Korea.

"So we lose a million or two."

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

That is definitely the worry in my mind. But you can't just level a country because they might some day sell something to a rogue state.

SI

[RainMaker]

Why do I have a feeling that those who want to enforce this militarily are the ones who won't be enlisting when it happens?

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

We did not vote for him. He was appointed PM after the election and has led his party to historic polling lows.

I think Browns biggest problem is that he doesn't have charisma and a winning smile. Most people can't see past that. He seems do have done a very solid job dealing with the recession.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That is definitely the worry in my mind. But you can't just level a country because they might some day sell something to a rogue state.

SI

READ: Let's sit back and do nothing until Tel Aviv is levelled.

Really?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Are you willing to sacrifice Seoul over a conventional missile that didn't hit the U.S.?

If they fire anything even close to us, as I said, they should have a boatload of missles up their ass within 30 minutes. Period. I'm sick of watching these little countries do their thing...if they want to keep talking, fine but as soon as one of them does ANYTHING remotely directed toward the US...even if it's just to show us they can, we should show them what we can do right back.

I will contend we have never seen what the true US military is capable of doing. They see struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan and think we aren't that powerful not understanding both of this situations are a half-assed attempt at a war. But if someone tries to see how powerful we really are then I'm all for showing them.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rowech

I will contend we have never seen what the true US military is capable of doing. They see struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan and think we aren't that powerful not understanding both of this situations are a half-assed attempt at a war. But if someone tries to see how powerful we really are then I'm all for showing them.

I think you are confusing "keeping the peace" with "war". Short of using nukes, I don't think there was any holding back or "half-assing" in the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[jeff061]

In both Iraq and Afghanistan the leadership was removed relatively early and easily. The long term plan may have left a lot to be desired, but I'm not sure that matters so much to the Taliban and Saddam.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rowech

If they fire anything even close to us, as I said, they should have a boatload of missles up their ass within 30 minutes. Period. I'm sick of watching these little countries do their thing...if they want to keep talking, fine but as soon as one of them does ANYTHING remotely directed toward the US...even if it's just to show us they can, we should show them what we can do right back.

I will contend we have never seen what the true US military is capable of doing. They see struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan and think we aren't that powerful not understanding both of this situations are a half-assed attempt at a war. But if someone tries to see how powerful we really are then I'm all for showing them.

That still won't save Seoul. The NKs have so much artillery that we can't possibly stop them from leveling Seoul without Jon's dream of a full nuclear strike.(which would, of course, get the Chinese and probably Russians to fire nukes and wipe us all out, but I guess that's a feature and not a bug for a guy that wants several billion fewer people)

The reality is that there's likely no scenario where a military strike doesn't end in an all out war on the Korean peninsula. Given that reality, we need to be responsible about waving our dick around. A threatening missile shot that results in no causalities would certainly demand a level of response, but firing a bunch of missiles will result in thousands of deaths of our allies.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

READ: Let's sit back and do nothing until Tel Aviv is levelled.

Really?

Oh, I'm sorry- apparently I wasn't clear. Yeah, let's just lob some of ours in there to get it done. Hell, let's just eliminate Israel because that would make the Middle East that much more peaceful

While we're putting words in others' mouths, I'm sure you're in favor of going in and occupying another country for the next 10 years.

I know it's silly, particularly when we have economic issues, to perhaps lay off being the most extreme versions of the world's policemen and try to use diplomacy to pressure China to act either directly or indirectly through Japan since its in their best interests to not let North Korea arm.

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Oh, I'm sorry- apparently I wasn't clear. Yeah, let's just lob some of ours in there to get it done. Hell, let's just eliminate Israel because that would make the Middle East that much more peaceful

I don't believe you are really this bad at holding a debate, but to be fair, I was implicitly mocking your portrayal of me wanting to "level the country" when I said no such thing.

While we're putting words in others' mouths, I'm sure you're in favor of going in and occupying another country for the next 10 years.

What I actually said was --> "I would be more concerned about NK perfecting nukes and ballistics and selling the technology (or finished products) to nations willing to bomb Israel."

I'm putting words in your mouth? Nowhere did I say we should "level the country" nor did I suggest that. I have actually been pretty consistent in saying we should not take NK's capabilities lightly (by incorrectly thinking all they are really trying to do is bomb Hawaii).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't believe you are really this bad at holding a debate, but to be fair, I was implicitly mocking your portrayal of me wanting to "level the country" when I said no such thing.

He probably confused you with me.

I'm the one who wants them bombed forward to the Stone Age if they shoot anything bigger than a Pop Cap in the general direction of Hawaii.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What I actually said was --> "I would be more concerned about NK perfecting nukes and ballistics and selling the technology (or finished products) to nations willing to bomb Israel."

I'm putting words in your mouth? Nowhere did I say we should "level the country" nor did I suggest that. I have actually been pretty consistent in saying we should not take NK's capabilities lightly (by incorrectly thinking all they are really trying to do is bomb Hawaii).

Your exact response was, quoting my previous one was

READ: Let's sit back and do nothing until Tel Aviv is levelled.

What the heck is that but putting words in my mouth??

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Your exact response was, quoting my previous one was



What the heck is that but putting words in my mouth??

SI

*sigh*

One more time for ya.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't believe you are really this bad at holding a debate, but to be fair, I was implicitly mocking your portrayal of me wanting to "level the country" when I said no such thing.

It was in response to your nonsense. Don't post nonsense if you aren't willing to be ribbed about it. Obviously you did not like it one bit. So think next time before you post nonsense and stop making up imaginary crap and then argue against said imaginations.

Stick to what is actually written and discuss that so we can stay on topic.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The reality is that there's likely no scenario where a military strike doesn't end in an all out war on the Korean peninsula. Given that reality, we need to be responsible about waving our dick around. A threatening missile shot that results in no causalities would certainly demand a level of response, but firing a bunch of missiles will result in thousands of deaths of our allies.

Exactly, and this is why our response to NK is always more measured than the hawks would like to see it. Not only are we not capable currently of engaging in a full-scale conflict anywhere in the world other than Iraq and Afghanistan, the instigation of a conflict would instantly mean an incredible tragedy for South Korea. I hope we haven't become so defensive about our military prowess that we're willing to throw away lives so easily.

In some ways North Korea has us over a barrel and we just have to accept that. That what comes from living in the real world where no one, even a superpower, always gets what they want.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Exactly, and this is why our response to NK is always more measured than the hawks would like to see it.

Do you actually believe that's more about South Korea than about us not wanting to deal with China? How ... interesting. I can't say I've ever heard anyone even posit that theory before.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Do you actually believe that's more about South Korea than about us not wanting to deal with China? How ... interesting. I can't say I've ever heard anyone even posit that theory before.

Yes, I do, and I certainly did not invent the idea myself. I don't think the U.S. has reached the point where they're willing to let millions of civilians die in the capital city of an ally. Even if you want to be heartless about it, that's not good geopolitical mojo.

[Autumn]

Here is a comment on the fact from Stratfor (www.stratfor.com), for instance.

North Korea, on the other hand, has held downtown Seoul (just across the demilitarized zone) at risk for generations with one of the highest concentrations of deployed artillery, artillery rockets and short-range ballistic missiles on the planet. From the outside, Pyongyang is perceived as unpredictable enough that any potential pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities is too risky not because of some newfound nuclear capability, but because of Pyongyang’s capability to turn the South Korean capital city into a proverbial “sea of fire” via conventional means. A nuclear North Korea, the world has now seen, is not sufficient alone to risk renewed war on the Korean Peninsula.

Certainly there is more to international politics than that, and China has a big role, but I think this element is underestimated, as I've said earlier.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Even if you want to be heartless about it, that's not good geopolitical mojo.

And if NK is allowed to do as they please, what value does that ally actually have? They exist in that role as a potential base of operations in the region (and even that value has grown increasingly questionable over the past couple of decades, I think the last estimate I saw is that it would take less than 8 hours for all US forces in South Korea to be wiped out by a well planned & sufficiently fortified attack) but if we aren't going to be operating in the region then what value do they have left?

And if NK launching a missile toward the U.S. isn't grounds to operate in the region then frankly, none will ever exist.

[Fighter of Foo]

Am I the only person that finds the idea of North Korea launching a missle at Hawaii absolutely fucking ridiculous? This is probably one of the dumber things I've read all year. I expected to see a flame war as that's the only way I figured this would still be at all on topic at 120+ posts.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Am I the only person that finds the idea of North Korea launching a missle at Hawaii absolutely fucking ridiculous? This is probably one of the dumber things I've read all year. I expected to see a flame war as that's the only way I figured this would still be at all on topic at 120+ posts.

Oh believe me, I'm with you, but if anyone was to do it, it would be that quackjob that would...

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Am I the only person that finds the idea of North Korea launching a missle at Hawaii absolutely fucking ridiculous? This is probably one of the dumber things I've read all year. I expected to see a flame war as that's the only way I figured this would still be at all on topic at 120+ posts.

And for how long did we find the idea of a terrorist attack on US soil absolutely ridiculous?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

And for how long did we find the idea of a terrorist attack on US soil absolutely ridiculous?

NOUN...VERB...9/11.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by rowech

And for how long did we find the idea of a terrorist attack on US soil absolutely ridiculous?

Not very. That's infinitely more plausible than the idea that a bass-ackwards country with no economy or revenue is going to design a missle that's going to fly 4500 miles across the pacific ocean and actually hit somewhere in Hawaii.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Not very. That's infinitely more plausible than the idea that a bass-ackwards country with no economy or revenue is going to design a missle that's going to fly 4500 miles across the pacific ocean and actually hit somewhere in Hawaii.

Actually we covered that up the thread somewhere.

I think the consensus was that the biggest danger to Hawaii was that NK would aim for a random spot in the ocean & hit Hawaii by accident.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually we covered that up the thread somewhere.

I think the consensus was that the biggest danger to Hawaii was that NK would aim for a random spot in the ocean & hit Hawaii by accident.

Thanks. Apologies for not reading the thread.

Of all the things in the world to possibly worry about, this is most definitely not one of them.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Not very. That's infinitely more plausible than the idea that a bass-ackwards country with no economy or revenue is going to design a missle that's going to fly 4500 miles across the pacific ocean and actually hit somewhere in Hawaii.

I don't mean to sound flippant or callous to the residents of Hawai'i, but it's not entirely relevant if NK were to hit Hawai'i with a missle, but the fact that they tried to do so.

Obviously nobody wants to see Hawai'i hit with a nuke, but the response from the U.S. should be the same regardless of where the missile lands if it's launched with the intent to hit.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Not very. That's infinitely more plausible than the idea that a bass-ackwards country with no economy or revenue is going to design a missle that's going to fly 4500 miles across the pacific ocean and actually hit somewhere in Hawaii.

I'd love to think they are idiots too, but they developed nuclear weapons. If that was possible, making a transport is going to be a snap, comparatively.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Obviously nobody wants to see Hawai'i hit with a nuke, but the response from the U.S. should be the same regardless of where the missile lands if it's launched with the intent to hit.

Exactly. Just because they don't know what they're doing doesn't mean we can ignore the intent.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well, I guess the missile thing didn't work out. Kim has moved on to denial of service attacks with much better results...............

North Korea May Be Behind Wave of Cyberattacks - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Are you willing to sacrifice Seoul over a conventional missile that didn't hit the U.S.?

That's really the bottom line, and is what makes dealing with NK so difficult.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But the question that really matters is whether the Chinese are willing to sacrfice Beijing over North Korea.

China won't get into a shooting war with the U.S. Our military may have its problems, but it is easily head-and-shoulders the best at state-vs-state warfare. Any half-way rational country knows how quickly the U.S. military would crush their own military like a bug.

The question that really matters is to what extent the U.S. can operate to curb NK's proliferation activities (sanctions, freezing finances, interdicting ships, etc...) without provoking an overt response from NK and/or China. The real problem is that China seems to not care about NK's proliferation activities, and neither (really) does Russia, so the bulk of the non-proliferation activity has to fall on the U.S. (with some token support from allies).

Having said that, one would think the U.S. could take a more muscular stance about NK's proliferation activities, doing more things like interdiction of shipping to basically force China into a position of trying to control their pet rogue state.

And of course this is all further complicated by the fact that the South Koreans view the North Koreans as part of the same country that they'd like to see get reunited someday. So merely storming over the border and killing everyone doesn't solve the problem, either.

Originally Posted by Dutch

READ: Let's sit back and do nothing until Tel Aviv is levelled.

Arguably this is exactly what was done vis-a-vis Pakistan, who actually sold (through a rogue operator running their nuclear program) technology on the black market. Of course since then they've had a political revolution and are playing ball, so maybe it's an argument for a wait-and-see approach? I don't know....

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'd love to think they are idiots too, but they developed nuclear weapons. If that was possible, making a transport is going to be a snap, comparatively.

Actually, my understanding (which could certainly be faulty) is that the "difficult" parts of the whole nuclear thing are a) obtaining and refining the raw materials (especially without notice) and b) the delivery system but not particularly making the device itself. The device itself is pretty old technology at this point.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Actually, my understanding (which could certainly be faulty) is that the "difficult" parts of the whole nuclear thing are a) obtaining and refining the raw materials (especially without notice) and b) the delivery system but not particularly making the device itself. The device itself is pretty old technology at this point.

To acquire stockpiles like the US, Russia, and China? You are correct. No way anybody else gets to nuclear super-power status without a good reason not to fight over it. The ability to continue to arm nuclear weapons? I think they can crank out between 2-10 a year? I might be wrong on that assumption though.

Also, a delivery system like the US, Russia, or China have? That will be difficult, but they are in fact trying and making some ground in that realm. Not bad. Let's not forget though that we bombed Japan in 1945 with one by using a B-24 bomber. And Israel flies over enemy airspace all the time by faking out enemy ATC and radar. With a country like NK, it's probably not a bad idea to think outside of the box a bit on what they are trying to accomplish.

I wonder if a nuclear bomb in a plane being flown around is detectable?

[flere-imsaho]

My point was simply that the development of a reliable intercontinental delivery system was, in fact, a greater engineering challenge than mining and refining nuclear raw material or assembling the actual bomb. In response to:

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'd love to think they are idiots too, but they developed nuclear weapons. If that was possible, making a transport is going to be a snap, comparatively.

This is not to say that they couldn't, at one point, finally make a reliable ICBM. I'm just saying that just because they've made a nuclear bomb doesn't mean they'll have a reliable delivery system in a matter of years.

The more you think about it, though, the more the ICBM thing seems like posturing. If they really wanted to bomb Japan they (presumably) could put a device on a "commercial" jetliner going there and detonate it upon landing. But maybe you can detect whether or not a jetliner has a bomb aboard from distance, I don't know.

Having said that, the biggest threat, of course, is not that they'll bomb Japan, South Korea or the U.S., but that they'll sell secrets and/or material to other rogue states, or non-state actors. But I've already gone over that in my previous post.

I guess I don't see much of a situation where their use of a nuclear bomb is very likely, since one of the almost certain outcomes would be the removal of their support (political, economic, etc...) from China and even possibly an occupation by China. Then again, we have no idea how stable (or not) the regime is.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Having said that, the biggest threat, of course, is not that they'll bomb Japan, South Korea or the U.S., but that they'll sell secrets and/or material to other rogue states, or non-state actors. But I've already gone over that in my previous post.

We are on the same page. It's my biggest concern as well because a bomb going off in Israel will set off a spectacular chain of events.

But no matter how hard it is for the ballistics side of things, if we handle the NK with kid gloves, they will develop their program.

[gstelmack]

They could just load it on a truck and drive it to Baltimore stadium faked up like a soda machine...

[molson]

I wish 30+ nations could somehow secretly agree on a regime change and get it over with some random Monday morning. They wouldn't know what happened. Then work towards a unified Korea.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I wish 30+ nations could somehow secretly agree on a regime change and get it over with some random Monday morning. They wouldn't know what happened. Then work towards a unified Korea.

It wouldn't even take that. The whole reunification could be achieved by the U.S. and China alone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It wouldn't even take that. The whole reunification could be achieved by the U.S. and China alone.

As a practical matter yes, though it'd just be cool if the world as a whole just agreed and did it in an instant. It should be like those movies where aliens attack, and everybody on earth is suddenly on the same side. That's kind of what North Korea is, a weird alien.

Where it would get messy is you had months of open discussion on it, and give North Korea a chance for wacky hijinx and resistance. I wish I could wake up tomorrow and have already have happend.

[Edward64]

The crazy leader isn't looking very good in the recent pictures. Said his brother-in-law was the one doing the day to day. Hopefully, when the crazy leader dies, it'll get better.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The crazy leader isn't looking very good in the recent pictures. Said his brother-in-law was the one doing the day to day. Hopefully, when the crazy leader dies, it'll get better.

He's already picked his craziest son to take over (I assume craziest is the criteria that was utilized).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

He's already picked his craziest son to take over (I assume craziest is the criteria that was utilized).

Its supposedly his crazy youngest son (23?) and he bypassed the crazy son #1 and #2. My best is there will be a crazy internal power struggle.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

They could just load it on a truck and drive it to Baltimore stadium faked up like a soda machine...

It was Denver Stadium in the book