North Korea went and Did it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I never thought Sun Tzu to be a coward.

Nor have I. My post did not imply any such thing, either, so …

Quote

Do you mind shoving that comment back in your ass?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

Your one warning.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Objecting with righteous indignation when others do the exact same things you have done yourself is a sure indication of hypocrisy.

A deep concern for avoiding hypocrisy regarding weapons proliferation is not generally considered a valid technique for national defense.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.
- David Hackworth

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

A deep concern for avoiding hypocrisy regarding weapons proliferation is not generally considered a valid technique for national defense.

It sort of is … hypocrisy being the inverse state in international affairs to dependability, stability, and trust.

Japan’s confidence in the US protection has been among the, if not the, single largest reasons it has not exercised its latent capabilities (i.e., they have plenty of fissile material and are technologically and industrially capable of weaponization). Taiwan, and South Korea rolled-back nascent offensive nuclear weapons programs because of US security guarantees. (ROK originally initiated theirs after the Nixon Doctrine, which weakened security guarantees ... their confidence/trust in us declined).

Article 5 of NATO is a security guarantee and is credited (along with the NPT) for having a significant role in avoiding the expected 10 new nuclear weapons states by 1972 that SecDef McNamara predicted in his now-famous declassified 1963 memo to President Kennedy.

They have to trust us.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[pirana 0]

Well, they tried to do it.

I'd say they tried and couldn't keep it up.

But seriously, I am usually very open to the arguements that soveriegn nations can do whatever they want; however, all bets are off when there is a nutjob at the helm.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Well, they tried to do it.

I'd say they tried and couldn't keep it up.

.

Do you recall how many tries it took for the US to launch its first satellite in the 1957-58 period?

Led to the following version of Perry Como's hit song:

Catch a falling star an’ put it in your pocket,: Never let it fade away
If you catch a Sputnik put it in a box and send it to the USA.

[nerdgirl 0]

GEN Cartwright’s comments earlier today w/r/t DPRK failed rocket test:

“they failed.”

W/r/t proliferation (selling around the world)

“Would you buy from some body who failed three times in a row and never been successful.”

(~43min in CSPAN video on 2010 Defense budget.)

/Marg ...I no idea he would say that when I posted my comments this morning

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you recall how many tries it took for the US to launch its first satellite in the 1957-58 period?

That's not a very good excuse now, with far better technology, as well as numerous working examples to buy/steal from others.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So how bad do you think the debt will be if they decide to vaporize a city?

Do you think the North Koreans are unable to imagine what would happen to them if they tried that?

Do you think we have the stones to respond in kind? Obviously we do. We even attack countries that HAVEN'T attacked us.*** I wonder how South Korea would react. Probly with invasion. China would back North Korea we would back the south and two super powers go Toe to Toe over the Korea Peninsula.......again.

Or maybe we would respond by invading Brazil or something.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Viking 0]

you know damn well speed racer that i ment nuking DPRK.

I don't think we have the stones for it.

I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver
My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

One question is what will push Japan to develop its own nuclear program.

By what mechanism/thinking do you see this rocket test pushing it? The October 2006 test/fizzle (it's still debated) or a 2nd more successful test or resumption of program with a 2nd test would seem to be a more likely inducement.

Not sure what event would push them over. It may just be a matter of enough time passing that no one alive still have connections to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki. But I think a huge part of their stance has been knowing that they could always change their mind. A perfect having your cake and eating it situation.

Another trigger could be the eventual decline of the US from being the single superpower to being one of the elites. At this point, the value of our nuclear umbrella has to shrink a bit, and could lead them to see us not backing them up in a show down.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you recall how many tries it took for the US to launch its first satellite in the 1957-58 period?

That's not a very good excuse now, with far better technology, as well as numerous working examples to buy/steal from others.

WE have better technology, but apparently THEY don't (yet).

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Objecting with righteous indignation when others do the exact same things you have done yourself is a sure indication of hypocrisy.

A deep concern for avoiding hypocrisy regarding weapons proliferation is not generally considered a valid technique for national defense.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.
- David Hackworth

Words of great wisdom to keep alive by.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

When al Qaeda attacked on 9/11.....It was brilliant

No...it was cowardly.

If they were to take out our bridges, powergrid, and strategic military targets, then maybe you'd be on to something....however, I'm shocked that you think killing thousand's of innocent lives is brilliant.

Fuck al Qaeda.

Does this clear up my previous response to your comments?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you recall how many tries it took for the US to launch its first satellite in the 1957-58 period?

That's not a very good excuse now, with far better technology, as well as numerous working examples to buy/steal from others.

WE have better technology, but apparently THEY don't (yet).

The world has better technology, not just WE. Room size computers replaced by ipods. Better fuels, gyros, materials, available GPS...it's just not that hard anymore. When the US and USSR engaged in the space race, they were working from a nearly blank slate, based more than anything on German experience in WWII.

[champu 1]

Quote

As DPRK is now 0 for 2 tries in Taepodong-2 tests.

One could throw the 1998 TD-1 failure in there and call it 0 for 3 if one were so inclined.

A few other comments, not necessarily directed at you Marg...

DPRK announced closure areas in both the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Ocean that would have made it very easy for Japan to figure out where the launch was headed if they felt precautions were necessary.

A trajectory taking the rocket between the mainland and Sapporo would result in a fairly whack orbit eccentricity for a comm sat. It would also probably be closer than they were willing to aim at Alaska.

The US space program was an adaptation of the US ICBM program, not the other way around. It's actually easier that way. If you don't really care what orbit characteristics you achieve or if your satellite burns up in the atmosphere after a month, launching a satellite is a hell of a lot easier than successfully hitting a target (even in nuclear weapon terms) half a world a way.

A comm sat would be plenty useful to DPRK to communicate with its aircraft or ships, I wouldn't think it weird that they'd pursue one. That said, I agree this launch was about weapon development and trying to create bargaining chips, not about space.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

A deep concern for avoiding hypocrisy regarding weapons proliferation is not generally considered a valid technique for national defense.

It sort of is … hypocrisy being the inverse state in international affairs to dependability, stability, and trust.

Japan’s confidence in the US protection has been among the, if not the, single largest reasons it has not exercised its latent capabilities (i.e., they have plenty of fissile material and are technologically and industrially capable of weaponization). Taiwan, and South Korea rolled-back nascent offensive nuclear weapons programs because of US security guarantees. (ROK originally initiated theirs after the Nixon Doctrine, which weakened security guarantees ... their confidence/trust in us declined).

Article 5 of NATO is a security guarantee and is credited (along with the NPT) for having a significant role in avoiding the expected 10 new nuclear weapons states by 1972 that SecDef McNamara predicted in his now-famous declassified 1963 memo to President Kennedy.

They have to trust us.

/Marg

Of course they have to trust us. That's not the same as having a level playing field, which is what I was talking about in regards to national defense. The hypocricy I'm referring to is the fact we have weapons and technology that we don't want others to develop. The protection for Japan is a perfect example.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[JohnRich 4]

Isn't it funny that:

1) N. Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and long range missiles, and;

2) Obama wants to reduce our anti-missile shield and eliminate our own nukes.

I think this is just hilarious! Ha!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

you know damn well speed racer that i ment nuking DPRK.

I don't think we have the stones for it.

Really? Interesting thought. I think America does.

Care to expand on why you think we don't have the "stones" for it?

I heard similar things from other naysayers about America after 9/11. That our troops didn't have the guts to take on Al Quaeda & their allies in Afghanistan.

As it turned out, they kicked ass & killed Muhammed Atef & captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & broke up the Al Quaeda training camps. Perhaps they would have finished the job if most of the troops hadn't gotten pulled away into another, optional war, allowing the Taliban & Al Quaeda to regroup. Rumsfeld pulled them out because there weren't enough "high value targets" in Afghanistan. In other words, the Neo-Cons were more worried about image than substance.


America clearly has the "stones", as long as they aren't diverted by a cynical bunch of neo-con imperialists who are happy to ignore America's real enemies & drag us through the mud in order to further their own political gains.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Isn't it funny that:

1) N. Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and long range missiles, and;

2) Obama wants to reduce our anti-missile shield and eliminate our own nukes.

I think this is just hilarious! Ha!

No, it’s not funny.

Nuclear weapons aren’t funny.
Ballistic missiles aren't funny (unless it's the Israelis selling to Indians - that was/is funny).

As GEN Cartwright noted they failed. Like [champu], GEN Cartwright observed this is the 3rd failure in a row. With zero successes in between. (I called it 0 for 2 to be precise w/r/t TD-2, but I will concede to [champu] and "Hoss" if they want to call it 0 for 3.)

They don’t have LRBM.

Very little is known about the October 2006 test/fizzle.

To jump from unspecified device to weapon capable of delivery by successful long range ballistic missile is like … well, like going from early Leonardo’s parachute designs to a heavily wing-loaded Vengeance.

As I noted in my summary of SecDef Gates and GEN Cartwright’s press conference on the fiscal 2010 defense budget yesterday, funding for THAAD is being increased. GEN Cartwright acknowledged -- & frankly kudos to him for honesty -- that most of the capability is under-developed, i.e., the technology is not there … and some would argue never will be w/r/t mid-course intercept.

Much of this conversation, & this is directed to more than just you John, has been for me like listening to whuffos talk about skydiving or as you might say anti-gunners talk about assault rifles.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

As DPRK is now 0 for 2 tries in Taepodong-2 tests.

One could throw the 1998 TD-1 failure in there and call it 0 for 3 if one were so inclined.

A few other comments, not necessarily directed at you Marg...

DPRK announced closure areas in both the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Ocean that would have made it very easy for Japan to figure out where the launch was headed if they felt precautions were necessary.

A trajectory taking the rocket between the mainland and Sapporo would result in a fairly whack orbit eccentricity for a comm sat. It would also probably be closer than they were willing to aim at Alaska.

The US space program was an adaptation of the US ICBM program, not the other way around. It's actually easier that way. If you don't really care what orbit characteristics you achieve or if your satellite burns up in the atmosphere after a month, launching a satellite is a hell of a lot easier than successfully hitting a target (even in nuclear weapon terms) half a world a way.

A comm sat would be plenty useful to DPRK to communicate with its aircraft or ships, I wouldn't think it weird that they'd pursue one. That said, I agree this launch was about weapon development and trying to create bargaining chips, not about space.

Good comments.

I suspect the only folks who think it was about space or communications satellites are the same folks who think the US used biological agents against North Korea during the Korean War, i.e., the low-level DPRK leadership and its population.

DPRK excels at brinkmenship.

How we -- the US, the world, the members of the 6-party talks, and the UNSC -- respond is the key, imo. China has the most leverage.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

When al Qaeda attacked on 9/11.....It was brilliant

No...it was cowardly.

Wow. There's nothing like quoting my words completely out of context in order to change the meaning from what I actually said.

Personally, I do not believe anyone who is willing to die for their cause, whether I believe in their cause or not, to be a coward. I am reminded of a line from the movie Troy:

"You are my enemy tonight, but even enemies can show respect."

From The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 by Ron Suskind by Ron Suskind:

At one 5p.m. meeting in April, Buzzy Krongard raised the issue of "what have we learned to this point, and what might we do differently?" What had they learned? "There was a grudging professional admiration for how hard these guys were," Krongard recalled later. "They were real soldiers. They went through hell, and gave up very, very little."

Quote

If they were to take out our bridges, powergrid, and strategic military targets, then maybe you'd be on to something....however, I'm shocked that you think killing thousand's of innocent lives is brilliant.

Apparently, you missed the point of my post, if you think that's what I said or meant. The brilliance had nothing to do with innocent lives being taken. The brilliance has to do with mounting a major attack against a superpower primarily on that superpower's dime.

Quote

Does this clear up my previous response to your comments?

No. It just indicates that you are not looking at the event objectively. Your looking at it emotionally. One need not agree with someone's actions to recognize excellent planning and execution. Enemies are not defeated by pretending they are weak, incompetent cowards.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One question is what will push Japan to develop its own nuclear program.

By what mechanism/thinking do you see this rocket test pushing it? The October 2006 test/fizzle (it's still debated) or a 2nd more successful test or resumption of program with a 2nd test would seem to be a more likely inducement.

Not sure what event would push them over. It may just be a matter of enough time passing that no one alive still have connections to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki. But I think a huge part of their stance has been knowing that they could always change their mind. A perfect having your cake and eating it situation.

Another trigger could be the eventual decline of the US from being the single superpower to being one of the elites. At this point, the value of our nuclear umbrella has to shrink a bit, and could lead them to see us not backing them up in a show down.

Strongly concur w/r/t latency argument. The argument challenging that is if they are faced with a Melian bargain, they won't have time to respond. I.e., why confidence in US security guarantees are important.

Other factors: China still has security guarantee to DPRK (Russia renounced its security guarantee), long-standing nationalist hatred between China & Japan, and horizontal proliferation. If ROC or ROK goes nuclear, I think the barrier to Japan will be lowered. Japan has >150 tons of Pu, of which 41 tons is in MOX (so would take >6months to be useable for weapons). ROK and ROC also have Pu (~44 & 22 tons, respectively) in spent fuel.

In July 2006, i.e., before DPRK Oct09 test/fizzle, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and ODNI’s National Counter-Proliferation Center (NCPC) brought together 40 folks to prioritize those countries which are considered to be likely nuclear weapons proliferators in 2016. Not states like DPRK & Iran that have nascent programs/intentions. And not necessarily to identify nation-states that would have acquired nuclear arsenals but to identify states before they have acquired nuclear weapons, when they are in the early and mid stages of thinking about or *deciding* to pursue a nuclear weapons program. It was a mix of intelligence community members, other US government representatives, and non-governmental experts (e.g., academics, think-tanks, SAIC.)

At the requested of the NIC and the ODNI/NCPC, the assembled group voted on the three most likely/plausible proliferant countries for 2016, i.e., who would make the decision to pursue nuclear weapons:

Candidates/votes
Saudi Arabia 20
Turkey 16
Japan 15
ROK 7
Taiwan 3
Ukraine 5
Burma 2
Kazakhstan 1
Venezuela 1
Syria 0
Egypt 0
Brazil 0

If you add up the votes possible (40 x 3 = 120), you can see that a lot folks didn’t vote at all, i.e., they didn’t think any of those states were likely. Predicting proliferation is hard … to put it diplomatically.

One can go back to Einstein’s letter (penned by Leo Szilard) to President Roosevelt advocating the US initiate a nuclear physics program and obtain natural uranium (1939) and the Franck Report (spring 1945): there have been attempts to predict proliferation since the before the beginning of the nuclear age. The technological determinists (e.g., SecDef McNamara) prevailed through the 1960s. After that the social science-based theoretical models emerged (Sagan, my guy ; Waltz, your guy - by schoools on sides of the bay not necessarily political theory leanings, etc) offering competing explanations and competing predictions of the likelihood for a state to pursue a nuclear weapons capability. The problem is:

“… in distilling useful, future-oriented information from the enormous body of literature on nuclear proliferation that has been produced during the past half century is the extent to which it is largely speculative and contradictory in its insights.”

There’s a thinking that says well it’s just too hard of problem. There’s another thinking (e.g., former Ambassador John Bolton) which espouses a just bomb/nuke/invade anyone we suspect policy, and then we’ll figure it/pick up the pieces/pay ($ & other ways) for it out later. And there’s a thinking that goes: hard problem – cool.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Care to expand on why you think we don't have the "stones" for it?

I heard similar things from other naysayers about America after 9/11. That our troops didn't have the guts to take on Al Quaeda & their allies in Afghanistan.

As it turned out, they kicked ass & killed Muhammed Atef & captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & broke up the Al Quaeda training camps. Perhaps they would have finished the job if most of the troops hadn't gotten pulled away into another, optional war, allowing the Taliban & Al Quaeda to regroup. Rumsfeld pulled them out because there weren't enough "high value targets" in Afghanistan. In other words, the Neo-Cons were more worried about image than substance.


America clearly has the "stones", as long as they aren't diverted by a cynical bunch of neo-con imperialists who are happy to ignore America's real enemies & drag us through the mud in order to further their own political gains.

Nobody questions the stones of the military to kick ass. The question is 'will they be sent.' The stones in question belong to the civilians in charge.

I don't think the current administration or Congress has it. They'd rather talk, hold hands, reduce our military, disassemble our defenses, and blame America for all the world's problems.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A deep concern for avoiding hypocrisy regarding weapons proliferation is not generally considered a valid technique for national defense.

It sort of is … hypocrisy being the inverse state in international affairs to dependability, stability, and trust.

Japan’s confidence in the US protection has been among the, if not the, single largest reasons it has not exercised its latent capabilities (i.e., they have plenty of fissile material and are technologically and industrially capable of weaponization). Taiwan, and South Korea rolled-back nascent offensive nuclear weapons programs because of US security guarantees. (ROK originally initiated theirs after the Nixon Doctrine, which weakened security guarantees ... their confidence/trust in us declined).

Article 5 of NATO is a security guarantee and is credited (along with the NPT) for having a significant role in avoiding the expected 10 new nuclear weapons states by 1972 that SecDef McNamara predicted in his now-famous declassified 1963 memo to President Kennedy.

They have to trust us.

Of course they have to trust us. The protection for Japan is a perfect example.

I'm going to move around some of your statements to try to respond to the different components. Part of your statements I agree and would defend ... actually have defended/do defend in the real world.... That's why I replied "it sort of is ..."

The protection (security guarantees) for Japan, ROK, NATO allies, and to lesser extent ROC, are dependent on trust in our word and documents (legal agreements) we sign. Among those documents are also international legal documents, like the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), which we ratified therefore making it US law.

The NPT has nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) states. DPRK signed, ratified, and became a member as a NNWS. The NPT is a tool that we can use. One tool. Not the only one. To ignore a effective tool like a screwdriver because one thinks a wrench is 'better' is silly, imo.

All of that is why diplomacy (another tool, perhaps set of tools in this analogy) and what other nations think (soft power, another set of tools) and strategic communications (another set of tools) are important -- because it makes executing US foreign policy in advancement of US strategic interests easier.

It *is* very important to separate the tools (diplomacy, soft power, strategic communications) from the goals - advance of US strategic interests.

Defending the NPT (or any tool) just for the sake of the tool is not in US strategic interests either, imo.

Ignoring all those tools does not advance strategic interests of the US either, i.e., the “light-switch” approach to foreign policy: the binary proposition that one must either throw “stones” (nukes/troops/bombs) or one must alternatively “rather talk, hold hands, reduce our military, disassemble our defenses, and blame America for all the world's problems.”

Quote

That's not the same as having a level playing field, which is what I was talking about in regards to national defense. The hypocricy I'm referring to is the fact we have weapons and technology that we don't want others to develop. .

I don't consider that hypocrisy -- that's preserving & developing capabilities in the national interest. One can make the same argument economically. We don't give away intellectual property.

I don't want DPRK, Iran, or a wealth of other nations & non-state actors to have nuclear weapons capabilities.

Weapons and technology are another set of tools. They should be the last set of tools used. Especially in consideration of all the successes that diplomacy, security guarantees, and soft power have had with both nuclear roll-back (i.e., Argentina, Brazil, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Libya, Norway, Sweden) and limiting proliferation (e.g., latent states: Japan, ROC, ROK).

/Ma

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying