billvon 3,096
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Quote>As I said, they aren't considered a threat, yet.
Al Qaeda wasn't considered much of a threat until 9/11. Let's hope it doesn't take an event like that this time.
Agreed. I think the situation is apples and oranges because NK is a country driven politically and AQ is a group of religeous zealots driven by ideology.
Quote>It's the nukes we are concerned about. Imagine how easy it would be for
> Hamas or Al Qaeda to get their hands on nukes if Iran ended up in
> political turmoil.
Agreed - but as North Korea has been trading missile and nuclear technology with China and Pakistan for years, and we _know_ they have fissiles, they are by far the greater threat.
Which is exactly why they aren't as much of a threat. Take a look at the amount of trade China does with the US. Do you really believe they are going to allow NK to damage that relationship?
billvon 3,096
> Take a look at the amount of trade China does with the US. Do you
>really believe they are going to allow NK to damage that relationship?
If they thought it was in their best interests to allow NK to harass us - absolutely. We'd do the same thing. We've made it clear we support the anti-Chavez rebels in Venezuela even though we get a lot of oil from them. Very soon China will start catching up with us economically, and we will start being in competition for resources like oil. At that point they may well see some value in keeping us preoccupied.
>really believe they are going to allow NK to damage that relationship?
If they thought it was in their best interests to allow NK to harass us - absolutely. We'd do the same thing. We've made it clear we support the anti-Chavez rebels in Venezuela even though we get a lot of oil from them. Very soon China will start catching up with us economically, and we will start being in competition for resources like oil. At that point they may well see some value in keeping us preoccupied.
Quote> Take a look at the amount of trade China does with the US. Do you
>really believe they are going to allow NK to damage that relationship?
If they thought it was in their best interests to allow NK to harass us - absolutely. We'd do the same thing. We've made it clear we support the anti-Chavez rebels in Venezuela even though we get a lot of oil from them. Very soon China will start catching up with us economically, and we will start being in competition for resources like oil. At that point they may well see some value in keeping us preoccupied.
Keeping the US preoccupied, perhaps. Damaging a relationship with the US as a trading partner isn't going to happen. China's continued growth in global markets is very reliant on that relationship.
billvon 3,096
> Damaging a relationship with the US as a trading partner isn't going to happen.
I seem to remember an incident where one of their fighters crashed into one of our surveillance planes, and they had no qualms about blaming us for it and making an international incident out of it. China is not as harmless as some people think; I could see them quietly encouraging NK to take on the US, then publically disavowing any relationship with them when the shit hit the fan. They may well have their own "plan for a new communist century."
I seem to remember an incident where one of their fighters crashed into one of our surveillance planes, and they had no qualms about blaming us for it and making an international incident out of it. China is not as harmless as some people think; I could see them quietly encouraging NK to take on the US, then publically disavowing any relationship with them when the shit hit the fan. They may well have their own "plan for a new communist century."
Quote> Damaging a relationship with the US as a trading partner isn't going to happen.
I seem to remember an incident where one of their fighters crashed into one of our surveillance planes, and they had no qualms about blaming us for it and making an international incident out of it. China is not as harmless as some people think; I could see them quietly encouraging NK to take on the US, then publically disavowing any relationship with them when the shit hit the fan. They may well have their own "plan for a new communist century."
Making an incident out of a downed surveilance plane to embarrass the US is a far cry from allowing NK to launch a nuclear attack.
I'm sure China has plans for the future as all countries do. I really doubt supporting NK in a nuclear war NK can't win is one of them. Plus the following nuclear counter-attack by the US wouldn't exactly create an economic boost to China with all the radiation next door.
They may well have their own "plan for a new communist century".***
Highly doubtful under today's Chinese government. Some sectors of the Chinese economy are demonstrating level of capitalism that I believe few outsiders would expect from China. Although China probably enjoys its status in the international scene as NK's big brother, it is becoming more and more a thorn in its thigh. Ideologically speaking, China and NK are quite far apart, and drifting further apart every year.
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
Highly doubtful under today's Chinese government. Some sectors of the Chinese economy are demonstrating level of capitalism that I believe few outsiders would expect from China. Although China probably enjoys its status in the international scene as NK's big brother, it is becoming more and more a thorn in its thigh. Ideologically speaking, China and NK are quite far apart, and drifting further apart every year.
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
billvon 3,096
>Making an incident out of a downed surveilance plane to embarrass
>the US is a far cry from allowing NK to launch a nuclear attack.
Agreed. But looking the other way sufficiently to allow NK to simply threaten the US? They stand to gain that way. They play aloof, the US asks them for help in applying pressure to NK, China says "well, OK, we can help you out if you do X, Y and Z." Plus which, NK then has the ability to threaten the US, and China can use that as often as desired.
Take Mexico. If Mexico started threatening Venezuela - not in a big way, just rattling their cage - whose side do you think we'd be on?
>I'm sure China has plans for the future as all countries do. I really
>doubt supporting NK in a nuclear war NK can't win is one of them.
We won the cold war by not fighting it, but you need nuclear weapons to play that game. Looks like North Korea wants to play, and if it leads to the US getting distracted by NK while China plays 'impartial observer' - well, that's to their benefit.
>Plus the following nuclear counter-attack by the US wouldn't exactly create
>an economic boost to China with all the radiation next door.
I think they know we wouldn't counterattack with nuclear weapons - we can level NK with conventional forces, and we wouldn't risk war with Japan and China. Besides which, they wouldn't even have to target one of our cities. They could use their current missiles to lob a nuke into a low trajectory over the Pacific, detonate it, and wipe out 75% of our satellites. That would do far more economic harm to the US than targeting Attu would (they can reach Attu today) - yet they could still claim they didn't attack us.
>the US is a far cry from allowing NK to launch a nuclear attack.
Agreed. But looking the other way sufficiently to allow NK to simply threaten the US? They stand to gain that way. They play aloof, the US asks them for help in applying pressure to NK, China says "well, OK, we can help you out if you do X, Y and Z." Plus which, NK then has the ability to threaten the US, and China can use that as often as desired.
Take Mexico. If Mexico started threatening Venezuela - not in a big way, just rattling their cage - whose side do you think we'd be on?
>I'm sure China has plans for the future as all countries do. I really
>doubt supporting NK in a nuclear war NK can't win is one of them.
We won the cold war by not fighting it, but you need nuclear weapons to play that game. Looks like North Korea wants to play, and if it leads to the US getting distracted by NK while China plays 'impartial observer' - well, that's to their benefit.
>Plus the following nuclear counter-attack by the US wouldn't exactly create
>an economic boost to China with all the radiation next door.
I think they know we wouldn't counterattack with nuclear weapons - we can level NK with conventional forces, and we wouldn't risk war with Japan and China. Besides which, they wouldn't even have to target one of our cities. They could use their current missiles to lob a nuke into a low trajectory over the Pacific, detonate it, and wipe out 75% of our satellites. That would do far more economic harm to the US than targeting Attu would (they can reach Attu today) - yet they could still claim they didn't attack us.
Quote>Making an incident out of a downed surveilance plane to embarrass
>the US is a far cry from allowing NK to launch a nuclear attack.
Agreed. But looking the other way sufficiently to allow NK to simply threaten the US? They stand to gain that way. They play aloof, the US asks them for help in applying pressure to NK, China says "well, OK, we can help you out if you do X, Y and Z." Plus which, NK then has the ability to threaten the US, and China can use that as often as desired.
NK can threaten us as much as they want, but at this point we don't consider them a threat ie. we don't fear they will launch a nuke.
QuoteTake Mexico. If Mexico started threatening Venezuela - not in a big way, just rattling their cage - whose side do you think we'd be on?
My guess is we would try to mediate a solution.
Quote>I'm sure China has plans for the future as all countries do. I really
>doubt supporting NK in a nuclear war NK can't win is one of them.
We won the cold war by not fighting it, but you need nuclear weapons to play that game. Looks like North Korea wants to play, and if it leads to the US getting distracted by NK while China plays 'impartial observer' - well, that's to their benefit.
Agreed. Which is why we have gotten Russia and China involved in the negotiations.
Quote>Plus the following nuclear counter-attack by the US wouldn't exactly create
>an economic boost to China with all the radiation next door.
I think they know we wouldn't counterattack with nuclear weapons - we can level NK with conventional forces, and we wouldn't risk war with Japan and China. Besides which, they wouldn't even have to target one of our cities. They could use their current missiles to lob a nuke into a low trajectory over the Pacific, detonate it, and wipe out 75% of our satellites. That would do far more economic harm to the US than targeting Attu would (they can reach Attu today) - yet they could still claim they didn't attack us.
I doubt that would happen because there would be no benefit to China. Even if they did launch a nuke and take out our satellites, we would still consider that an attack against American interests and there would be a response.
billvon 3,096
>NK can threaten us as much as they want, but at this point we don't
>consider them a threat ie. we don't fear they will launch a nuke.
They have nuclear weapons, launch vehicles, submarines and they have stated they will destroy the US. This is less of a threat than Iraq or Iran, who have no weapons?
>My guess is we would try to mediate a solution.
Mediate? This is the new era of preemptive invasion and peace through superior firepower! We'd tell them to cut it out, then help Mexico get in touch with the Venezuelan insurgency fighters.
>I doubt that would happen because there would be no benefit to
> China. Even if they did launch a nuke and take out our satellites, we
> would still consider that an attack against American interests and
> there would be a response.
You think? You think the world would stand still for an attack against North Korea, in retaliation for a bomb test over the Pacific Ocean? I think China would make it pretty clear that they would not tolerate a US attack against North Korea. As soon as the smoke settled, _they'd_ be the ones pushing to "mediate a solution" - after all, no US citizens or territories were attacked.
But this is getting pretty far away from the point. North Korea has nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and a madman running things. They are a huge threat. The time to decide what to do with them is now, not in two years when we have lost our GPS, communications and spy satellites (or worse, Anchorage.)
>consider them a threat ie. we don't fear they will launch a nuke.
They have nuclear weapons, launch vehicles, submarines and they have stated they will destroy the US. This is less of a threat than Iraq or Iran, who have no weapons?
>My guess is we would try to mediate a solution.
Mediate? This is the new era of preemptive invasion and peace through superior firepower! We'd tell them to cut it out, then help Mexico get in touch with the Venezuelan insurgency fighters.
>I doubt that would happen because there would be no benefit to
> China. Even if they did launch a nuke and take out our satellites, we
> would still consider that an attack against American interests and
> there would be a response.
You think? You think the world would stand still for an attack against North Korea, in retaliation for a bomb test over the Pacific Ocean? I think China would make it pretty clear that they would not tolerate a US attack against North Korea. As soon as the smoke settled, _they'd_ be the ones pushing to "mediate a solution" - after all, no US citizens or territories were attacked.
But this is getting pretty far away from the point. North Korea has nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and a madman running things. They are a huge threat. The time to decide what to do with them is now, not in two years when we have lost our GPS, communications and spy satellites (or worse, Anchorage.)
QuoteMediate? This is the new era of preemptive invasion and peace through superior firepower! We'd tell them to cut it out, then help Mexico get in touch with the Venezuelan insurgency fighters.
Ever situation is different. How we handle one situation isn't indicative of how we would handle another.
QuoteYou think? You think the world would stand still for an attack against North Korea, in retaliation for a bomb test over the Pacific Ocean? I think China would make it pretty clear that they would not tolerate a US attack against North Korea. As soon as the smoke settled, _they'd_ be the ones pushing to "mediate a solution" - after all, no US citizens or territories were attacked.
I didn't say there would be an attack on China for launching a nuke against our satellites. I said there would be a response. Every country has vulnerabilities.
QuoteBut this is getting pretty far away from the point. North Korea has nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and a madman running things. They are a huge threat. The time to decide what to do with them is now, not in two years when we have lost our GPS, communications and spy satellites (or worse, Anchorage.)
Which is why we have China involved in negotiations. If we really wanted to bring NK down, we would simply blockade them and cut off their source of income such as exporting weapons and drugs. Then we could claim we hadn't attacked them.
billvon 3,096
>Which is why we have China involved in negotiations. If we really wanted to
>bring NK down, we would simply blockade them and cut off their source of
> income such as exporting weapons and drugs. Then we could claim we
> hadn't attacked them.
So you're saying we're allowing them to sell weapons to other countries now? Interesting, given one of the rationales behind attacking Iraq was to prevent them from doing that very thing. (And NK actually _has_ WMD's.)
A blockade would likely make them that much more desperate, and then we'd have a desperate madman with nuclear weapons and nothing to lose. And if he does use his weapons, our ability to "claim" that we didn't attack them will be cold comfort.
It's a dangerous situation. We should be devoting a lot more energy to dealing with it before it gets worse.
>bring NK down, we would simply blockade them and cut off their source of
> income such as exporting weapons and drugs. Then we could claim we
> hadn't attacked them.
So you're saying we're allowing them to sell weapons to other countries now? Interesting, given one of the rationales behind attacking Iraq was to prevent them from doing that very thing. (And NK actually _has_ WMD's.)
A blockade would likely make them that much more desperate, and then we'd have a desperate madman with nuclear weapons and nothing to lose. And if he does use his weapons, our ability to "claim" that we didn't attack them will be cold comfort.
It's a dangerous situation. We should be devoting a lot more energy to dealing with it before it gets worse.
The war would be bad but South Korea has the power to defend itself. China is a different story entirely. A US war with PRC would/will be Hell on Earth.
South Korea
Military branches:
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Maritime Police (Coast Guard)
Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (24-28 months mandatory service required, depending on the military baranch involved) (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 14,233,895 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 8,966,241 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 341,697 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$14.522 billion (FY03)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
2.7% (FY03)
source
North Korea
Military branches:
Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces
Military manpower - military age:
17 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,181,038 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,694,855 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 189,014 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$5,217.4 million (FY02)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
22.9% (2003)
source
Peoples Republic of China
Military branches:
People's Liberation Army (PLA): comprises ground forces, Navy (including naval infantry and naval aviation), Air Force, and II Artillery Corps (strategic missile force), People's Armed Police Force (internal security troops, nominally a state security body but included by the Chinese as part of the "armed forces" and considered to be an adjunct to the PLA), militia
Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 379,524,688 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 208,143,352 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 12,494,201 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$60 billion (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
3.5-5.0% (FY03 est.)
source
--------------
South Korea
Military branches:
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Maritime Police (Coast Guard)
Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (24-28 months mandatory service required, depending on the military baranch involved) (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 14,233,895 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 8,966,241 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 341,697 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$14.522 billion (FY03)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
2.7% (FY03)
source
North Korea
Military branches:
Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces
Military manpower - military age:
17 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,181,038 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,694,855 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 189,014 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$5,217.4 million (FY02)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
22.9% (2003)
source
Peoples Republic of China
Military branches:
People's Liberation Army (PLA): comprises ground forces, Navy (including naval infantry and naval aviation), Air Force, and II Artillery Corps (strategic missile force), People's Armed Police Force (internal security troops, nominally a state security body but included by the Chinese as part of the "armed forces" and considered to be an adjunct to the PLA), militia
Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (2004 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 379,524,688 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 208,143,352 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 12,494,201 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$60 billion (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
3.5-5.0% (FY03 est.)
source
--------------
rhino 0
QuoteA good portion of our allies asked us not to go into Iraq.
Please name that good portion if you will?
rhino 0
QuoteTake a look at the amount of trade China does with the US. Do you really believe they are going to allow NK to damage that relationship?
Yep...
rhino 0
QuoteBut this is getting pretty far away from the point. North Korea has nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and a madman running things. They are a huge threat. The time to decide what to do with them is now, not in two years when we have lost our GPS, communications and spy satellites (or worse, Anchorage.)
Couldn't agree with you more Bill.. North Korea is our largest threat.. By 100 fold...
Our procrastination is only allowing that mad man to grow more powerful.
Rhino
rhino 0
Quotewar with PRC would/will be Hell on Earth.
You are correct.. I would not want to be a China man when thepissed off Marines come rolling into town to kill them..
and they would.. Kill them....
Rhino
Quote
Agreed. Much easier to go after someone with no WMD program. Interesting lesson we are teaching the madmen of the world, though. "If you want to protect yourself from the US, do whatever it takes to get nukes!"
That's hardly a new lesson. No nuclear power has ever gone to war with another nuclear power. Proxy battles sure, but never direct action. When you join the nuclear family, you remove invasions from the option list of your enemies. That's why we invaded Iraq, but continue the diplomatic routes with North Korea. Even if they can't deliver nukes to us, they can certainly get Japan or South Korea.
If you think they didn't know this before, you must deem them to ignorant cave dwellers or something.
PhreeZone 20
The marines would have to kill about 400:1 to have even numbers... your a fool if you think the US would win that one. The only winners would be the cockroaches.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
billvon 3,096
>I would not want to be a China man when thepissed off Marines
>come rolling into town to kill them..
While I have no doubt that the marines would make short work of any small chinese military units, the nuclear exchange is the thing we want to worry about, I think. Their DF-31 missile can, today, reach Alaska and Hawaii; their DF-31A, soon to be deployed, would likely reach the continental US.
If we ever get to the point that we're fighting Chinese military in the streets of Shenzen, we will have already lost. As good as our marines are, they can't stand against 200 million chinese defending their homes - and if they've already used their defenses against us, some of those marines may not have homes to return to. Let's hope we don't see that eventuality.
>come rolling into town to kill them..
While I have no doubt that the marines would make short work of any small chinese military units, the nuclear exchange is the thing we want to worry about, I think. Their DF-31 missile can, today, reach Alaska and Hawaii; their DF-31A, soon to be deployed, would likely reach the continental US.
If we ever get to the point that we're fighting Chinese military in the streets of Shenzen, we will have already lost. As good as our marines are, they can't stand against 200 million chinese defending their homes - and if they've already used their defenses against us, some of those marines may not have homes to return to. Let's hope we don't see that eventuality.
Al Qaeda wasn't considered much of a threat until 9/11. Let's hope it doesn't take an event like that this time.
>It's the nukes we are concerned about. Imagine how easy it would be for
> Hamas or Al Qaeda to get their hands on nukes if Iran ended up in
> political turmoil.
Agreed - but as North Korea has been trading missile and nuclear technology with China and Pakistan for years, and we _know_ they have fissiles, they are by far the greater threat.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites