I'm not anti-Clinton. Neither am I anti-Bush. I may be anti-hollywood-idiots-making-political-statements. 
Woman Takes on Anti-War Celebs
- Thread starter Blitz
- Start date
kosar
kosar
the missile that flew over japan was in 1998....the one that landed in the sea of japan in february came on the eve of the innauguration of new s korean president roh moo hyun....with colin powell and japan`s leader junichiro koizumi attending...it was designed to send a message......there`s no disputing that(although the leaders downplayed the incident)....
as far as the test war head found in alaska,it was in "the korea times"....(hankooki.com-korean version)....under the headline.."n korean missile warhead found in alaska"...03/14/03....ryu jin columnist..i didn`t make it up.....
japan has also threatened pre-emptive strikes on n.korea if they deem it necessary(although japan has no nuclear arsenal-what do we do in that situation?)........if we weren`t stationed in s.korea,i wonder how long it would take poor,starving n.korea to overtake their more prosperous better half....kim jong-il is shaky.....and it`s generally agreed,that n.korea can hit the western u.s. with nuclear weapons...
my point is,don`t pooh-pooh the n korean situation....a small nation with an enormous army....and nuclear capability....
these despots aren`t limited by treaties and bureaucratic b.s.....if we can`t uncover evidence via satelite photos and the like,in a closed society like this,we have no idea what they may be doing....
kosar
the missile that flew over japan was in 1998....the one that landed in the sea of japan in february came on the eve of the innauguration of new s korean president roh moo hyun....with colin powell and japan`s leader junichiro koizumi attending...it was designed to send a message......there`s no disputing that(although the leaders downplayed the incident)....
as far as the test war head found in alaska,it was in "the korea times"....(hankooki.com-korean version)....under the headline.."n korean missile warhead found in alaska"...03/14/03....ryu jin columnist..i didn`t make it up.....
japan has also threatened pre-emptive strikes on n.korea if they deem it necessary(although japan has no nuclear arsenal-what do we do in that situation?)........if we weren`t stationed in s.korea,i wonder how long it would take poor,starving n.korea to overtake their more prosperous better half....kim jong-il is shaky.....and it`s generally agreed,that n.korea can hit the western u.s. with nuclear weapons...
my point is,don`t pooh-pooh the n korean situation....a small nation with an enormous army....and nuclear capability....
these despots aren`t limited by treaties and bureaucratic b.s.....if we can`t uncover evidence via satelite photos and the like,in a closed society like this,we have no idea what they may be doing....
Last edited:
Ferdville :clap:
Don't ya just luv Babs-
Streisand had urged her fans to save energy by using less gas, setting air conditioners at 78 degrees, handing laundry outside and so on, Yet she uses SUV?s, limos and private jets, air conditions an unoccupied 16 room apartment and of course does not hang her laundry. When questioned about this, her spokesperson said:
"She never meant that it necessarily applied to her."
AND
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/5303729.htm
Ya but can she cook?
Don't ya just luv Babs-
Streisand had urged her fans to save energy by using less gas, setting air conditioners at 78 degrees, handing laundry outside and so on, Yet she uses SUV?s, limos and private jets, air conditions an unoccupied 16 room apartment and of course does not hang her laundry. When questioned about this, her spokesperson said:
"She never meant that it necessarily applied to her."
AND
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/5303729.htm
Ya but can she cook?
Re: kosar
Re: kosar
Right, that's what I said about the missles. They didn't 'just' fire one across Japan, as you said in your first post. That was 5 yrs ago.
I'll look up that article about the warhead thing in Alaska.
Also, it's not 'generally accepted' that North Korea can hit the US with nuclear weapons. It *is* generally accepted that they have a missle that theoretically can hit at least Alaska with a full payload and the Western US with a lighter payload. It is also generally accepted that they do not have the capability the tip that missle with a nuclear warhead. It is also univerally accepted that that particular ICBM has never even been tested.
As far as how long it would take N. Korea to overtake S. Korea if we weren't there? About exactly the same amount of time it will take them with us there.
The only utility of our troops being there is symbolic. It shows that we will stand by South Korea in the event of a war. Our 37,000 troops have little functional value and if North Korea invades, they will have Seoul occupied within days.
With our re-inforcements we would eventually 'win' the war, but our current troops there are not a deterrent, other than in an abstract sense.
Re: kosar
gardenweasel said:
Right, that's what I said about the missles. They didn't 'just' fire one across Japan, as you said in your first post. That was 5 yrs ago.
I'll look up that article about the warhead thing in Alaska.
Also, it's not 'generally accepted' that North Korea can hit the US with nuclear weapons. It *is* generally accepted that they have a missle that theoretically can hit at least Alaska with a full payload and the Western US with a lighter payload. It is also generally accepted that they do not have the capability the tip that missle with a nuclear warhead. It is also univerally accepted that that particular ICBM has never even been tested.
As far as how long it would take N. Korea to overtake S. Korea if we weren't there? About exactly the same amount of time it will take them with us there.
The only utility of our troops being there is symbolic. It shows that we will stand by South Korea in the event of a war. Our 37,000 troops have little functional value and if North Korea invades, they will have Seoul occupied within days.
With our re-inforcements we would eventually 'win' the war, but our current troops there are not a deterrent, other than in an abstract sense.
our presence is obviously symbolic
our presence is obviously symbolic
nobody expects 37,000 troops to stop the n korean army(a silly statement)....but it does mean that any aggression would mean they would face the wrath of the u.s......and the last time i checked,the west coast is still a part of the u.s.(as is alaska).....i don`t need a source for that info...also,it`s a fact that an unmarked,unidentified n korean ship was stopped and searched heading to terrorist sympathizer yemen stocked with missiles.....the threat of a poor nation like n.korea,selling arms to rogue nations and terrorist sympathizers is an ongoing threat....
whatever we do in n.korea and iraq,may not be enough...i really think the cat may be out of the bag....we can ignore it and hope it goes away...i don`t think it will..with these countries seeing firsthand that the u.n. is unwilling to step up and enforce their resolutions......... in iraq(17 of them),in n korea kicking inspectors out .....it will only embolden them.....
our presence is obviously symbolic
nobody expects 37,000 troops to stop the n korean army(a silly statement)....but it does mean that any aggression would mean they would face the wrath of the u.s......and the last time i checked,the west coast is still a part of the u.s.(as is alaska).....i don`t need a source for that info...also,it`s a fact that an unmarked,unidentified n korean ship was stopped and searched heading to terrorist sympathizer yemen stocked with missiles.....the threat of a poor nation like n.korea,selling arms to rogue nations and terrorist sympathizers is an ongoing threat....
whatever we do in n.korea and iraq,may not be enough...i really think the cat may be out of the bag....we can ignore it and hope it goes away...i don`t think it will..with these countries seeing firsthand that the u.n. is unwilling to step up and enforce their resolutions......... in iraq(17 of them),in n korea kicking inspectors out .....it will only embolden them.....
Garden,
I found that article about the supposed warhead found in Alaska that you referred to in the Korea paper. I couldn't find any reference to it in any US newspaper.
The thing is, is that the quote was from a Japanese foreign minister referring generically to a 'US document' at a conference with 5 other countries while he was trying to get the other countries (including China) convinced that North Korea has this capability. I just don't think that is credible at all.
I would be more inclined to take that 'story' seriously if one of our own officials confirmed exactly what, if anything, was found.
Here is a good article that speaks to the conversation that we're having:
Assessment of the North Korean Missile Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David C. Wright, Co-Director and Senior Scientist, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists; Research Scientist, Security Studies Program, MIT.
February 25, 2003
There is significant concern in the United States about the North Korean ballistic missile program and its ability to threaten US territory and allies. Since the mid-1980s, North Korea has?likely with significant foreign assistance?developed and produced a series of ballistic missiles of increasing range. It now deploys missiles with ranges able to reach all of South Korea and Japan, and is developing longer range missiles. It is also known to have transferred missile technology, as well as complete missiles, to other countries.
Assessments of North Korea?s military capability often portray North Korea as possessing a long-range nuclear missile capability, or as able to rapidly acquire one. This is not true.
North Korea has short-range variants of the Scud missile, with ranges up to 500-600 kilometers for a payload of 500 kilograms, that are well tested. These missiles can reach all of South Korea with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads, if North Korea has developed such warheads for missile delivery. North Korea has sold large numbers of these missiles to other countries.
The longest range missile currently deployed by North Korea is the No Dong missile, with an estimated range of 1,300 kilometers for a payload of about 700 kg. Such a range would allow North Korea to target all of Japan. North Korea is believed to have flight tested the No Dong only once?in May 1993. While Pakistan may have provided North Korea with information from the tests of its Ghauri missile, which is believed to consist largely or entirely of North Korean technology, and North Korea is believed to have used a modified No Dong as the first stage of the Taepo Dong 1 (TD-1) launched in 1998, North Korea nonetheless has limited information about the reliability and accuracy of the missile. The No Dong uses a larger, more powerful engine than the Scud missile. This engine, which is believed to have been developed with foreign assistance, is believed to be used in the longer range missiles North Korea is developing.
The only test of a longer range missile occurred in August 1998, when the three-stage TD-1 missile was launched in an attempt to place a small satellite in orbit. This effort was not successful due to a failure of the missile?s third stage. The test did demonstrate for the first time North Korea?s technical capability to launch missiles with multiple stages, as well as its access to solid fuel technology, which was used in the third stage. However, the missile cannot be considered operational without further testing.
Even if the TD-1 were successfully tested in the future, it would have limited capability and could at best deliver a small payload as far as Alaska or Hawaii. As noted in the September 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, if North Korea decided to develop an intercontinental range missile it would likely try to develop the Taeop Dong 2 (TD-2), which could carry larger payloads, rather than the TD-1.
The TD-2 has never been flight tested, although US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) have stated since 1998 that it was believed ready for flight testing. Even if true, this does not mean that North Korea could quickly turn it into an operational missile once it decided to begin flight testing.
The TD-2 is significantly different than any missile North Korea has built or tested. It would be significantly larger than the TD-1, with a maximum diameter nearly twice that of the TD-1. It would be three times as massive as the TD-1 and would generate greater thrust, so that the mechanical stresses on the body would be more severe than on previous missiles. Moreover, North Korea is expected for the first time to use a cluster of four engines in the large first-stage booster of the TD-2, which increases the complexity of the missile. Most discussions of the TD-2 assume that it will include a third stage, which is required for the ranges usually attributed to it, but North Korea has not successfully launched such a stage.
Moreover, North Korea has not flight tested a reentry heat shield for a long-range missile, and would need to do so before it could use it to deliver a warhead.
As a result of these uncertainties, there is no basis for assuming that early tests of a TD-2 would be successful. Even if they were, some number of flight tests?possibly small but more than a couple?would be required to provide an estimate of the reliability of the missile. While North Korea might field a missile based on one or two tests, its confidence in its ability to use such a missile would be very low.
I found that article about the supposed warhead found in Alaska that you referred to in the Korea paper. I couldn't find any reference to it in any US newspaper.
The thing is, is that the quote was from a Japanese foreign minister referring generically to a 'US document' at a conference with 5 other countries while he was trying to get the other countries (including China) convinced that North Korea has this capability. I just don't think that is credible at all.
I would be more inclined to take that 'story' seriously if one of our own officials confirmed exactly what, if anything, was found.
Here is a good article that speaks to the conversation that we're having:
Assessment of the North Korean Missile Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David C. Wright, Co-Director and Senior Scientist, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists; Research Scientist, Security Studies Program, MIT.
February 25, 2003
There is significant concern in the United States about the North Korean ballistic missile program and its ability to threaten US territory and allies. Since the mid-1980s, North Korea has?likely with significant foreign assistance?developed and produced a series of ballistic missiles of increasing range. It now deploys missiles with ranges able to reach all of South Korea and Japan, and is developing longer range missiles. It is also known to have transferred missile technology, as well as complete missiles, to other countries.
Assessments of North Korea?s military capability often portray North Korea as possessing a long-range nuclear missile capability, or as able to rapidly acquire one. This is not true.
North Korea has short-range variants of the Scud missile, with ranges up to 500-600 kilometers for a payload of 500 kilograms, that are well tested. These missiles can reach all of South Korea with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads, if North Korea has developed such warheads for missile delivery. North Korea has sold large numbers of these missiles to other countries.
The longest range missile currently deployed by North Korea is the No Dong missile, with an estimated range of 1,300 kilometers for a payload of about 700 kg. Such a range would allow North Korea to target all of Japan. North Korea is believed to have flight tested the No Dong only once?in May 1993. While Pakistan may have provided North Korea with information from the tests of its Ghauri missile, which is believed to consist largely or entirely of North Korean technology, and North Korea is believed to have used a modified No Dong as the first stage of the Taepo Dong 1 (TD-1) launched in 1998, North Korea nonetheless has limited information about the reliability and accuracy of the missile. The No Dong uses a larger, more powerful engine than the Scud missile. This engine, which is believed to have been developed with foreign assistance, is believed to be used in the longer range missiles North Korea is developing.
The only test of a longer range missile occurred in August 1998, when the three-stage TD-1 missile was launched in an attempt to place a small satellite in orbit. This effort was not successful due to a failure of the missile?s third stage. The test did demonstrate for the first time North Korea?s technical capability to launch missiles with multiple stages, as well as its access to solid fuel technology, which was used in the third stage. However, the missile cannot be considered operational without further testing.
Even if the TD-1 were successfully tested in the future, it would have limited capability and could at best deliver a small payload as far as Alaska or Hawaii. As noted in the September 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, if North Korea decided to develop an intercontinental range missile it would likely try to develop the Taeop Dong 2 (TD-2), which could carry larger payloads, rather than the TD-1.
The TD-2 has never been flight tested, although US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) have stated since 1998 that it was believed ready for flight testing. Even if true, this does not mean that North Korea could quickly turn it into an operational missile once it decided to begin flight testing.
The TD-2 is significantly different than any missile North Korea has built or tested. It would be significantly larger than the TD-1, with a maximum diameter nearly twice that of the TD-1. It would be three times as massive as the TD-1 and would generate greater thrust, so that the mechanical stresses on the body would be more severe than on previous missiles. Moreover, North Korea is expected for the first time to use a cluster of four engines in the large first-stage booster of the TD-2, which increases the complexity of the missile. Most discussions of the TD-2 assume that it will include a third stage, which is required for the ranges usually attributed to it, but North Korea has not successfully launched such a stage.
Moreover, North Korea has not flight tested a reentry heat shield for a long-range missile, and would need to do so before it could use it to deliver a warhead.
As a result of these uncertainties, there is no basis for assuming that early tests of a TD-2 would be successful. Even if they were, some number of flight tests?possibly small but more than a couple?would be required to provide an estimate of the reliability of the missile. While North Korea might field a missile based on one or two tests, its confidence in its ability to use such a missile would be very low.
Re: our presence is obviously symbolic
Re: our presence is obviously symbolic
Well, since you apparently agree that our presence is symbolic, why would you muse about how much quicker North Korea would take over the South is we weren't there? Your implication was obviously that our guys would somehow slow them down.
Yes, Alaska is the west coast. No, they can't deliver a nuclear warhead there, as you said they could. They would be extremely lucky to manage to even hit Alaska with a conventional missle. They have never even tested that ICBM. And for that one chance to hit the US with a conventional missle, they would have their country destoyed beyond recognition. I really don't think worrying about one lucky shot is necessary. The have some pretty good reasons not to even think about that.
Re: our presence is obviously symbolic
gardenweasel said:
Well, since you apparently agree that our presence is symbolic, why would you muse about how much quicker North Korea would take over the South is we weren't there? Your implication was obviously that our guys would somehow slow them down.
Yes, Alaska is the west coast. No, they can't deliver a nuclear warhead there, as you said they could. They would be extremely lucky to manage to even hit Alaska with a conventional missle. They have never even tested that ICBM. And for that one chance to hit the US with a conventional missle, they would have their country destoyed beyond recognition. I really don't think worrying about one lucky shot is necessary. The have some pretty good reasons not to even think about that.
kosar
kosar
i said symbolic...nothing about slowing them down....they are there to let n korea know that an attack on s korea is in essence,an attack on the u.s.....a deterrent.....a warning....as are the 24 b-1 and b-52 missiles recently deployed in guam.....to let them know we are serious....
if we accept the argument that they can`t hit the u.s.in any way shape or form(which we don`t),what about their ability to arm those that can harm the u.s. and their allies(i.e. the missiles to yemen i mentioned before)....the same argument applies to iraq....
and we know any attack on japan or south korea might provoke an all-out war with north korea(as we know a bio-chemical or nuclear attack on israel might put us in a position to be forced to go to war in the middle east) ,....we know the mentality of hussein(who lobbed scuds into israel and invaded kuwait)....from most things i have read,kim jong-il is even more irrational
this stuff may not scare you...but it scares me....and the fact that n.korea is apparently resuming their nuclear program is very disturbing
you probably won`t agree,but i see some similarities between winston churchill`s the gathering storm and our situation now....the particular`s may differ(i.e. one nation slowing re-arming and building it`s military with bad intentions)vs a budding global nuclear threat replete with rogue nations,unstable dictators and terrorists......and with the advent of chemical,biological and nuclear weapons,the stakes are raised considerably....
it seems that most of the world is more interested in status quo,not rocking the boat.....but,for our country,the dynamic has changed since 9/11.....nuclear,biological and chemical weapons are the ultimate bargaining chips...
i am not a big proponent of this war.....but,i do see the rationale behind the argument.....allout war and occupation does seem heavyhanded...will inspections work in a country the size of california?......when the troops are removed from around iraq,what will be saddaam`s motivation to comply after thumbing his nose at 17 previous resolutions?...
europe chose to bury their heads in the sand....those that don`t learn from history are doomed to repeat it(or something like that )....kosar,we probably won`t agree on much......maybe i`m paranoid....but i think the u.s. has to look out for their own best interests....
it`s sad that an honest debate degenerated into a bush vs clinton row....i`ll take partial responsibility for that...
kosar
i said symbolic...nothing about slowing them down....they are there to let n korea know that an attack on s korea is in essence,an attack on the u.s.....a deterrent.....a warning....as are the 24 b-1 and b-52 missiles recently deployed in guam.....to let them know we are serious....
if we accept the argument that they can`t hit the u.s.in any way shape or form(which we don`t),what about their ability to arm those that can harm the u.s. and their allies(i.e. the missiles to yemen i mentioned before)....the same argument applies to iraq....
and we know any attack on japan or south korea might provoke an all-out war with north korea(as we know a bio-chemical or nuclear attack on israel might put us in a position to be forced to go to war in the middle east) ,....we know the mentality of hussein(who lobbed scuds into israel and invaded kuwait)....from most things i have read,kim jong-il is even more irrational
this stuff may not scare you...but it scares me....and the fact that n.korea is apparently resuming their nuclear program is very disturbing
you probably won`t agree,but i see some similarities between winston churchill`s the gathering storm and our situation now....the particular`s may differ(i.e. one nation slowing re-arming and building it`s military with bad intentions)vs a budding global nuclear threat replete with rogue nations,unstable dictators and terrorists......and with the advent of chemical,biological and nuclear weapons,the stakes are raised considerably....
it seems that most of the world is more interested in status quo,not rocking the boat.....but,for our country,the dynamic has changed since 9/11.....nuclear,biological and chemical weapons are the ultimate bargaining chips...
i am not a big proponent of this war.....but,i do see the rationale behind the argument.....allout war and occupation does seem heavyhanded...will inspections work in a country the size of california?......when the troops are removed from around iraq,what will be saddaam`s motivation to comply after thumbing his nose at 17 previous resolutions?...
europe chose to bury their heads in the sand....those that don`t learn from history are doomed to repeat it(or something like that
)....kosar,we probably won`t agree on much......maybe i`m paranoid....but i think the u.s. has to look out for their own best interests....it`s sad that an honest debate degenerated into a bush vs clinton row....i`ll take partial responsibility for that...
China is haveing it's problems with N Korea to. There trying to stop the flood of refugees coming from there. Have placed more troops on that border.
Got one question on N korea.Why should we have supported them with any economic aid what so ever just so they can use all their money to build their military. I have yet to figure that out.
We send enough to our allys with out supporting our major enemies.
We send enough to our allys with out supporting our major enemies.
Good question. Been a on going deal with us, and Japan kicking in a little to for over 20 years. Somethings bite us dont they. Same with Iraq we gave them so much from 78 to 89 it was grazy. Heck did we not support good oh boy Bin for about 5/6 years back in the late 80's to.
DOGS THAT BARK said:
Dogs,
It's definitely a twisted situation in regard to sending them aid, but it's also a fact that while we did so, their reactors were dormant. The second we turned that oil tanker around they reactivated the same reactor that has been asleep since 1994. (lumping them in with Iraq as a part of an 'axis of evil' at the exact time that it became apparent we would attack Iraq didn't help matters).
Now, this activation seems to be what everybody is worried about. I'm not sure we can have it both ways. (i'm not saying that to you specifically, but more in reaction to the general sentiment).
which is the perfect example
which is the perfect example
of how a country with nuclear weapons,or one that threatens to start producing them owns the ultimate bargaining chip....as i said,whether all out war and occupation is the answer,i don`t know....but,the threat of weapons of mass destruction certainly changes the leverage available to dictator`s like kim jung-il and saddam hussein........
which is the perfect example
of how a country with nuclear weapons,or one that threatens to start producing them owns the ultimate bargaining chip....as i said,whether all out war and occupation is the answer,i don`t know....but,the threat of weapons of mass destruction certainly changes the leverage available to dictator`s like kim jung-il and saddam hussein........
I agree with you on that Kosar but where do you draw the line.How can you let a regime like that tell the world to support us or we will fire it up--and if the world continues to play that game what other countries are going to follow suit.Where does it end.It kind of like hostages for money on much larger scale.Once you give in it has snowball effect. It is flat out extorsion. China needs to quit bluffing. Maybe if it will take us threatening to put nukes in S Korea and Japan to get them to move--however I would hope it would be a bluff for effect and not an actual occurance.
If no one gave them but very limited aid they would have no resouces for military. Their population is starving and freezing now if not for aid sent they would have no choice but to overthrow from within.
If no one gave them but very limited aid they would have no resouces for military. Their population is starving and freezing now if not for aid sent they would have no choice but to overthrow from within.
That is part of the problem. They put all there efforts into there military. Thats is why there military is so large. It's one of the only places there people have to go and get taken care of. Even there not all have it very well. The general public has little or nothing. That is why so many refugees are trying toget into China. Why did we not have China help out N Korea more, In place of us.
China places little or no restrictions on N korea. At least us and Japan do. Food for peace is not a bad plan. We have more food here then we know what to do with. Sad that we have folks here go hungry. We have enough for them to. The part where we give them oil. That was more for heating oil then gasoline. Japan also kicked in for that. If doing those two things prevent war. Seems a cheep way out. After all we just offerd Turkey 30 billion just to let us place some of our army there. This deal with N korea Fox news reported would have taken 15 years for it to cost us 30 billion.
China places little or no restrictions on N korea. At least us and Japan do. Food for peace is not a bad plan. We have more food here then we know what to do with. Sad that we have folks here go hungry. We have enough for them to. The part where we give them oil. That was more for heating oil then gasoline. Japan also kicked in for that. If doing those two things prevent war. Seems a cheep way out. After all we just offerd Turkey 30 billion just to let us place some of our army there. This deal with N korea Fox news reported would have taken 15 years for it to cost us 30 billion.
