PDA

View Full Version : Scary news: N. Korea missle + West Coast


Rower_CPU
Feb 12, 2003, 07:23 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/index.html

Remind me again why we're focusing so heavily on a country that can barely launch a missle 200Km?

LethalWolfe
Feb 12, 2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/index.html

Remind me again why we're focusing so heavily on a country that can barely launch a missle 200Km?


Because you don't need kid gloves if the other guy's arms are short than yours are.

A less cryptic analogy would be this. There are two people with guns (person A and person B). Person A has the gun in his hand and is ready to fire. The goal with person A is to calmly talk him into lowering his weapon, and you don't want to make any quick moves or scare him 'cause he just might panic and start firing. Person B's pistol is holstered. The goal w/person B is to stop him before he can draw his weapon and start firing. So fast, decisive action is need to disarm Person B and defuse the situation before it elevates.


Lethal

Rower_CPU
Feb 12, 2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Because you don't need kid gloves if the other guy's arms are short than yours are.

A less cryptic analogy would be this. There are two people with guns (person A and person B). Person A has the gun in his hand and is ready to fire. The goal with person A is to calmly talk him into lowering his weapon, and you don't want to make any quick moves or scare him 'cause he just might panic and start firing. Person B's pistol is holstered. The goal w/person B is to stop him before he can draw his weapon and start firing. So fast, decisive action is need to disarm Person B and defuse the situation before it elevates.


Lethal

A flawed analogy from the beginning.

We're talking the difference between a gun and a knife here. The difference between a short range attack and a long range one.

Iraq has a "knife" and has made no overt threats or is even posturing to attack the US. Whereas N. Korea clearly has a "gun" and is clearly acting in a threatening manner.

So, if you're in a dark alley and there are two thugs, one with a sheathed knife and one with a gun in your face, which one to you pay attention to? The way I see it, if you go after the guy with the knife, you got shot in the back.

job
Feb 12, 2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The way I see it, if you go after the guy with the knife, you got shot in the back.

Which makes me also wonder...

When we go after Saddam, and if North Korea hits the United States and we go to war with them, what's to stop China from going after Taiwan?

It's like a third guy kidnapping your kid brother while you're laying on the ground bleeding to death. :p

Rower_CPU
Feb 12, 2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by hitman
Which makes me also wonder...

When we go after Saddam, and if North Korea hits the United States and we go to war with them, what's to stop China from going after Taiwan?

It's like a third guy kidnapping your kid brother while you're laying on the ground bleeding to death. :p

Ugh...what the hell is going on with the world?!?!

China kidnapping Taiwan, cats and dogs sleeping together...mass hysteria!!! :p

Mr. Anderson
Feb 12, 2003, 08:32 PM
The key here is that the missles aren't tested for that long a range yet. And Korea is not going to launch an ICBM at us first. They realize that it would only be as a last resort, fly in the face of death type thing.

Its all about deterance, they're just posturing to try and play with the big boys and get taken seriously.

D

Rower_CPU
Feb 12, 2003, 08:40 PM
Yeah, I know it's far-fecthed, but scary nonetheless...Hawaii would be an easy target. :(

e-coli
Feb 12, 2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Yeah, I know it's far-fecthed, but scary nonetheless...Hawaii would be an easy target. :(

not that anyone would ever want to think about anything like this, but...

i wouldn't be the slightest bit worried about N. Korea launching a nuke at us. We'd turn their country in to a parking lot, and they know it. the ONLY good thing about our huge arsenal.

:rolleyes:

rice_web
Feb 12, 2003, 10:08 PM
Hey guys, don't forget about the Kashmir Conflict. Oh, and the Venezuela Oil Crisis. Oh, I almost forgot, Argentina has no national currency. This one nearly slipped my mind, the Crisis in Chechnya.

The world is ready for a world war, the third world war. Ironically, also the Third-World War.

3rdpath
Feb 12, 2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by e-coli


not that anyone would ever want to think about anything like this, but...

i wouldn't be the slightest bit worried about N. Korea launching a nuke at us. We'd turn their country in to a parking lot, and they know it. the ONLY good thing about our huge arsenal.

:rolleyes:

when countries are threatened and/or sanctioned they are capable of doing things that don't seem logical. ww2 is a good example of this.

and who's to say n. korea would act alone....its not like they're the only country with nukes capable of hitting us or that they're the only country pissed at the u.s.

MacAztec
Feb 12, 2003, 10:27 PM
Just because it cant fly over 200Km, doesnt mean it cant go over 200Km. Its called a dirty bomb. Just sneak one into the U.S., and...well...biiiiiggg trouble.

They wont be launching nukes at us, rather set them off in big cities

topicolo
Feb 12, 2003, 10:44 PM
I think the Chinese taking over of Taiwan is the least of the US's worries. The US won't be losing much economically since most companies are moving their production over to China anyways. Also, the Taiwanese government have been arrogantly poking and prodding at the Chinese government for the last decade, trying to get a rise out of them just for the hell of it. Any takeover will probably occur diplomatically, but if war does break out, it'll be quick, just like last gulf war. Besides, Taiwan was a part of China only about 50-60 years ago.
Another good thing is that the Chinese politiburo isn't crazed like Saddam, Kim Jong Il, or Fidel Castro. Their human rights record far exceeds those of Iraq, NK, and (maybe) Cuba and with A$$croft's recent "terrorist" dealings, it seems like they aren't too much worse than the US itself.

Mr. Anderson
Feb 12, 2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
I think the Chinese taking over of Taiwan is the least of the US's worries. The US won't be losing much economically since most companies are moving their production over to China anyways. Also, the Taiwanese government have been arrogantly poking and prodding at the Chinese government for the last decade, trying to get a rise out of them just for the hell of it.

All the PowerBooks come from Taiwan - I would imagine that it would be a bad thing for Apple if it were to happen. The last thing we need is domestic strife in the country that produces most macs.......

D

mattmack
Feb 12, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
I think the Chinese taking over of Taiwan is the least of the US's worries.
The US official stance if im not mistaken is to defend Taiwan at all costs

Mr. Anderson
Feb 12, 2003, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by mattmack

The US official stance if im not mistaken is to defend Taiwan at all costs

Um, all costs can get pretty high. I imagine that it would go that far, since at some point every thing would go to hell and we'd all be screwed. It would be very tough for us to put soldiers in harms way over Taiwan if China attacked. Keeping it from escalating would not be easy and I don't see an easy solution.

D

748s
Feb 13, 2003, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by hitman


Which makes me also wonder...

When we go after Saddam, and if North Korea hits the United States and we go to war with them, what's to stop China from going after Taiwan?

It's like a third guy kidnapping your kid brother while you're laying on the ground bleeding to death. :p

and india removing pakistan from the face of the earth. thailand taking out cambodia. china finishing off tibet. indonesia invading australia.
and.......could this be the war to end all wars?

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 13, 2003, 06:56 AM
This is exactley why the world cannot let rogue nations be ran by tyrant/dictators/killers anymore. Iraq and its bio chem weapons/N Korea with nukes. There is a time for peace & freedom loving people to stand up and say we are not going to let you destroy what we have created. I saw a picture on fox the other day showing North and South Korea at night. North was a void, no lights nothing total black. South was lit up everywhere showing a vibrant society/economy and power grids everywhere. It is a shame what these Tyrants do to their people and countries. Instead of focusing on its people and society all its interested in is making more and more weapons. Well North Korea cant eat its weapons.

wdlove
Feb 13, 2003, 10:47 AM
We can thank Bill Clinton for our current problems with China & North Korea. No one but our local talk show host Jay Severin is willing to talk about Clinton handing over missile & nuclear technology to China & North Korea. When will we learn that appeasement does not work, remember Nevel Chamberlain.

Backtothemac
Feb 13, 2003, 10:55 AM
Rower,
Here it is.

You live on Street A. On Street B there is a quiet Kid, never talks much, very inclusive. Now what you don't know is that he hates you. For whatever reason. So, he has secretly been learning Kempo so that he can kill you with his bare hands. He is small, but musclar, not tall, not an imposing visual threat.

On Street C there is a big guy, now I know you are my size, so lets say this kid is 7'2. He is 300 lbs. He can bench 500 lbs. He hates you and wears a shirt that says it. He calls you and makes threats.

You know he hates you right. You can stay away from him. He is easy to see. Truth is, he likes you, he just needs help with homework. So, he makes you think he hates him, but when you talk, you realize that he just wants a little help. The other guy that has a network of friends even more weak than him that hate you too. You don't want them ganging up and jumping you.

Same here. Iraq and terrorists, the chemicals, etc. He is a madman, and wants to kill us. N. Korea, wants political help and food, etc. This is their trump care to negotiate help in their country.

Rower_CPU
Feb 13, 2003, 11:03 AM
Great analogy, BTTM! I can see the reasoning behind that...but let's fill in some of the blanks.

You and your gang of buddies (the UN) has been going into the neighborhoods and homes of the buddies of the kid on street B (terrorists) and beating the crap out of them and tearing down their homes and communities. His friends are on the run, hiding out at their Aunt's house. The one guy who runs the gang, who you were after in the first place (Bin Laden) in no-where to be found but still (allegedly) communicating to his gang.

The big guy, on the other hand, is calling you out in the schoolyard. He's acting like a bully, talking like a bully - why not treat him like a bully? Put him in his place and show him who's boss.

Back to reality, now...

No country, especially after the Cold War, should be able to get away with open, threatening nuclear development. Period.

Mr. Anderson
Feb 13, 2003, 01:15 PM
The problem with nukes, using this analogy, invovles more than just your house. It affects the whole neighborhood or town. So it becomes everyones problem.

D

macfan
Feb 13, 2003, 01:48 PM
I don't think I've seen a collection of more flawed analogies, over simplifications, and general fear mongering all together in one place since watching Congress on CSPAN!

Backtothemac
Feb 13, 2003, 02:16 PM
Actually, they are really good analogies. Point is that Rower is Right. No country should be able to threaten nukes to get their political agenda satisfied. But here is the difference, N. Korea can reach so many countries, and has far, far more standing military power than Iraq. They have not as immediate threat because they do not share the same religious beliefs as the Iraqis, and that is a big difference.

They may be crazy, but not religious nuts.

Mr. Anderson
Feb 13, 2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


They may be crazy, but not religious nuts.

True, but they are zealots of a different kind - so its still a tricky situation getting them to listen.

And macfan, if you'd care to elaborat on your comment and add something, instead of just posting a statement and not backing up with any ideas or thoughts, I'd love to hear it.

D

3rdpath
Feb 13, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
There is a time for peace & freedom loving people to stand up and say we are not going to let you destroy what we have created.

the people of any nation who choose to stand up?

or just us?

you do know that there are many people who think of themselves this way in iraq? they are normal people with regular jobs, families and peaceful aspirations. they may not even like saddam. and large numbers of them will likely be killed or injured during our war with saddam. is it " too bad" for them?

isn't it possible that other nations might see g.w.b. as a rogue leader with nuclear capabilities? he has certainly threatened them with his " axis of evil" rhetoric. and is it just "too bad" for us if we die in their process to change the regime?

the view depends upon where you stand and who's shoes you're in.

3rdpath
Feb 13, 2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No country should be able to threaten nukes to get their political agenda satisfied.

to continue...

no country..or no country but us?

Backtothemac
Feb 13, 2003, 03:15 PM
3rd path. We don't threaten with nukes. All we have done is say that if they are used against us, then we will retaliate with them.

That is all.

Chad
Feb 13, 2003, 03:16 PM
one prob is they can shoot them say to Hawaii and maybe as far as the west coast but most say they wouldnt make it
one other prob is they most likely couldnt hit Hawaii as they have no good guideance system so shooting is one thing hitting is another.

if they shoot off the couple nukes they have then they open the gate for us to nuke them back and we can hit what we want and we have a ton more than them

also any country that starts a nuke war is not going to look good in the eyes of the UN

either way not good when pissy little countries are building up weapons such as those that are beein built

one other prob is that Korea is not hiding stuff as sadam is and doesnt have the bio chems that he has

3rdpath
Feb 13, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
3rd path. We don't threaten with nukes. All we have done is say that if they are used against us, then we will retaliate with them.

That is all.

not true.

it's widely reported that we've developed and may use nuclear bunker busters. a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. lower the bar and every country may be able to justify their use. gosh, just imagine where hidden bunkers could be.....

and if you don't see rummy's( his preferred nickname) very public nuclear saber-rattling as an implied threat...well there ya go.

amazing how even people within the same country can have such different perspectives...imagine how things can be someplace across the globe.

Backtothemac
Feb 13, 2003, 04:10 PM
I understand that, but you have to understand that the N. Koreans are doing it to make the world help them. They are blackmailing the world for aid.

We are telling a soon to be battlefield enemy that they cannot use WMD against us, or we will retaliate with WMD.

Realize as well that if someone uses them against us, and we don't respond in kind, then everyone who has them would be more likely to use them.

Mr. Anderson
Feb 13, 2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Realize as well that if someone uses them against us, and we don't respond in kind, then everyone who has them would be more likely to use them.

Unfortunately, its an all or nothing gambit. It was much easier when it was just a two sided game. Now with every country try to get nukes in their arsenal, its much more difficult to play. I'm just hoping that people keep their cool so they can keep their heads.

D

macfan
Feb 13, 2003, 04:37 PM
And macfan, if you'd care to elaborat on your comment and add something, instead of just posting a statement and not backing up with any ideas or thoughts, I'd love to hear it.

There's way too much material there to deal with it all. I'll just say this: the expectation of North Korea launching a nuclear strike on the US and China invading Tiawan and that the rest of the world erupting into chaos is not particularly rational. First, North Korea doesn't want to be reduced to a parking lot, and they know we can do that to them with one little submarine that we no doubt have parked off their coast. China is not interested in an economic collapse, which would certainly follow an invasion of Tiawan. They will develop into a democratic country, and they are not going to invade Tiawan.

The presence of a powerful military tends to stabilize, not destabilize. Thus, you see the Balkans were more stable, if repressed, under Soviet domination than they were during the post-Cold War era. The most effective way to maintain and promote peace is to do so from a postion of military strength.

3rdpath, you need to get a grip. The implied threat of nuclear weapons always exists because we have such weapons. It has been long standing US policy that these weapons could be used under certain circumstances. In any event, a large nuclear weapon would be useless for the US in Iraq.

3rdpath
Feb 13, 2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I understand that, but you have to understand that the N. Koreans are doing it to make the world help them. They are blackmailing the world for aid.

We are telling a soon to be battlefield enemy that they cannot use WMD against us, or we will retaliate with WMD.

Realize as well that if someone uses them against us, and we don't respond in kind, then everyone who has them would be more likely to use them.

every country has their agenda...whether they use economic sanctions or the threat of nukes...and its funny, they ALL feel justified.

do you not see the irony that colin powell would comment (following 9/11) that no one has the right to destroy buildings and kill innocent people to further a political agenda...and we're on the verge of doing the EXACT same thing.

does saddam even have wmd? do you not see the similarities between the media propaganda of his capabilities compared to the last time we were going to war with iraq. his whole country rolled-over and played dead yet we carpet bombed them anyway. and we inflicted massive carnage on his troops when they were retreating-i guess a kills, a kill. i think we even lost more troops to friendly fire than to his weaponry....yet, here we are threatening them with nukes.

and as far as pitfalls of not responding in kind...how do you know. there is no precedent.

the only nation to ever use a wmd is the u.s.


operation: Wag the Puppy has begun.

macfan
Feb 13, 2003, 05:42 PM
the only nation to ever use a wmd is the u.s.


Untrue. WMDs have been used by many other nations, including Iraq and Japan.

does saddam even have wmd?

Yes. He does.

mattmack
Feb 13, 2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


to continue...

no country..or no country but us?
I don't believ we have threatened any of those countries with a nuclear attack

wdlove
Feb 13, 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


to continue...

no country..or no country but us?

Bill Clinton just used nuclear & missile technology for thre purpose of getting funds for the DNC, his re-election, and wonder is not him personally in a Swiss Bank Account, which we will never find out about. This is of public record, but our Liberal media are too busy doing obeisance before Bill Clinton to question him about this treasonous act. :(

3rdpath
Feb 13, 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by wdlove


Bill Clinton just used nuclear & missile technology for thre purpose of getting funds for the DNC, his re-election, and wonder is not him personally in a Swiss Bank Account, which we will never find out about. This is of public record, but our Liberal media are too busy doing obeisance before Bill Clinton to question him about this treasonous act. :(

not that this thread has anything to do with clinton( i think he's out of office...;) )

but i would like a link to this public information.

Mr. Anderson
Feb 13, 2003, 08:49 PM
WMD were first used in a major modern war in WWI - Germany and then England and France used all sorts of wonderful chemical agents, chlorine, mustard gas, etc. in artillery shells. I don't know if anyone has used biological wmd in a modern war. Before cannons, a good use of wmd was to lob a rotting horse or cow carcass over the beseiged cities walls to induce plague. Yummy :D

D

3rdpath
Feb 13, 2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
WMD were first used in a major modern war in WWI - Germany and then England and France used all sorts of wonderful chemical agents, chlorine, mustard gas, etc. in artillery shells. I don't know if anyone has used biological wmd in a modern war. Before cannons, a good use of wmd was to lob a rotting horse or cow carcass over the beseiged cities walls to induce plague. Yummy :D

D

i stand corrected...

but to clarify, i was really thinking of modern( ww2 and after) warfare.

but i'm not at all opposed to the throwing of rotting carcasses...kinda like golf before big bertha's...

mattmack
Feb 13, 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


i stand corrected...

but to clarify, i was really thinking of modern( ww2 and after) warfare.

but i'm not at all opposed to the throwing of rotting carcasses...kinda like golf before big bertha's...
LOL i like your golf analogy. just for info WW1 is considered by most historians to be the start of modern warfare