DPRK,ICBM
- Thread starter just me
- Start date
It would be mutually assured destruction.
China has a large, well trained, capable army. They have nuclear subs, and an impressive fleet. However, the US is technologically superior.
While this doesn't assure victory to the US by any means as the US has demonstrated it's capabilites frequently in the past decade, and I am sure that China has taken note and formulated strategies to overcome that handicap.
However, they know what a waste it would be to start a war that could potentially devastate the planet. So they are more likely to take a page from the US's own history and bankrupt us. Just like we did to the USSR to bring about the end of the Cold War.
Why crush the US militarily if they could become the lone superpower by just bankrupting the US?
S
Shai Gar
Good, it SHOULD be taken seriously. I take the matter seriously as well.
I'm not suggesting that they destroy the US with force of arms, simply that they could.
Also, sure the US has the power to destroy china in a land or sea or air war, but all china needs to do is deploy those ICBMs that they have and the US is history. It's something that most people forget... China doesn't need the most advanced army in the world, all they need is; border security, a small invasion force for if their neighbours get stupid, and
enough nuclear arms to destroy the US, and the UK. Noone else is a threat, hell, noone else THREATENS them, which is the big thing.
The most advanced army in the world won't help you if you're going up against a nation that has enough nukes to eliminate you completely.
Finally, Economically wasting the US would be the most efficient solution, but it'd also start a war.
Financially wasting the US would probably start a war. But I think it would be more along the lines of what happened after the USSR fell.
It would be the kind of little between states battles that China and the rest of the top-tier nations could safely ignore until some sort of moral authority felt they had to step in as a 'Peace Keeping' force.
And as the US has the same capabilities it nullifies the Chinese ability to crush us. There would be no victory for either side. Outcome would be Nuclear stalemate or everyone loses.
It would be the kind of little between states battles that China and the rest of the top-tier nations could safely ignore until some sort of moral authority felt they had to step in as a 'Peace Keeping' force.
And as the US has the same capabilities it nullifies the Chinese ability to crush us. There would be no victory for either side. Outcome would be Nuclear stalemate or everyone loses.
Our Patriot missile systems gives us first response capability. We might end up hurt, but certainly not destroyed. And I'm sure we have some sort of Black Op satellite based interceptor system that neither the general public nor China knows about.
ICBM's are just a neccessary ettiquet in the kind of international relations at play now. Countries are not so interested in control of territory, as they are interested in controlling sectors of markets.
North Korea is different, however, because it doesn't play on the same economic field as the US, China and most other countries. N Korea is 'self-sufficient' and their demi-god leader only desires keeping his own private playground closed to visitors.
Ultimately, the only way that US or other foreign economic aggression will make inroads into N Korea is if the leadership is overthrown, with or without invasion of the geographic territory. Dangerously for N Korea, ICBMs are no defense against attempts to incite rebellion or against assasinations. Hence, the 'true defence' of N Korea is censorship, massive propaganda and absurd domestic security.
North Korea is different, however, because it doesn't play on the same economic field as the US, China and most other countries. N Korea is 'self-sufficient' and their demi-god leader only desires keeping his own private playground closed to visitors.
Ultimately, the only way that US or other foreign economic aggression will make inroads into N Korea is if the leadership is overthrown, with or without invasion of the geographic territory. Dangerously for N Korea, ICBMs are no defense against attempts to incite rebellion or against assasinations. Hence, the 'true defence' of N Korea is censorship, massive propaganda and absurd domestic security.
S
Shai Gar
S
Shai Gar
Overreaction Benefits North Korea
By Richard Saccone
North Korea once again positioned itself at the head of the U.S. foreign policy queue by launching its most developed missile, the Taepodong-2, Sunday.
While the communist regime claimed it placed a satellite in space like its ally Iran did not long ago, American defense officials tracking the missile disputed the achievement, sticking to the charge that the launch was merely a poorly disguised attempt to conceal a test of North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology.
However, the penetrating question remains: How should the United States respond to the entire episode? Initially, the administration threatened to shoot down the missile, before wisely backing away. Then it called for sanctions, and finally returned to demands that the North cease launch preparations immediately.
After liftoff, the United States moved swiftly into verbal attack mode, condemning the action while plastering the North with fresh threats of punishment, including additional sanctions.
Unfortunately for the United States, all of these responses are counterproductive and doomed to continue generating the reverse of the intended effect.
Almost without exception, North Koreans stiffen in resolve when threatened, especially by the United States, a simple fact our officials appear unable to recognize after nearly 60 years of dealing with them across the negotiating table.
Our policy of confronting the North at every turn always produces the same affect: a continued escalation of hostile action by North Korea.
In the current situation, the North counter-threatened to shoot down U.S. spy planes and treat any foreign attempt to obstruct the launch as a provocation of war.
In addition, it holds two U.S. journalists hostage for illegally entering North Korea under the threat of a trial and severe penalty.
As we discovered during the negotiations with the North Koreans in the early part of this decade, they are capable, and sometimes difficult, negotiating adversaries, but are quite reasonable when approached in a sincere, logical manner free of threats.
The current U.S. government has fallen into the same trap as all the previous administrations since 1950, choosing the politically popular confrontational route instead of a more reasoned approach.
Especially in this instance, the North carefully respected international rules of notification, insisting the missile was meant for peaceful purposes.
The United States looked foolish, initially condemning the launch as a blatant cover for military purposes before announcing only a week later that its own satellite images showed the missile appeared to carry a satellite payload after all.
Unfortunately, U.S. officials suffer a history of knee-jerk overreactions to perceived North Korean aggression and being forced later to remove the egg from their own faces.
The North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) has since confirmed that the missile posed no threat to the United States at any time.
North Korea's clever method of following proper protocol as if it were launching a peaceful satellite blurred the argument for a tough international response by China and Russia, both of which are calling for moderation against the North.
The United States must stop pursuing its North Korea foreign policy in the national newspapers. Instead, it should replace public condemnation with private offers of improved relations in response to specific North Korean behavior.
Changing U.S. policy will not be easy because of the lengthy history of antagonism between the two countries.
However, America's new envoy to North Korea put it well, noting that the best policy is one of ``patience and perseverance." Dealing with the North is frustrating only because we continue employing the same failed tactics.
Hollow ultimatums coupled with meaningless resolutions are certain failures that play into the hands of hard-liners in the North Korean military.
One should expect a more sophisticated methodology from diplomats after decades of gaining no ground. It is time to consider alternatives that work, and there are several from which to choose.
Americans need not sacrifice their values or security to deal with North Koreans, but simply engage them from a collaborative mindset as opposed to an entrenched adversarial one. Such an approach has demonstrated success. Isn't it time we try it again?
Dr. Richard Saccone teaches international relations and political science at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa., the United States. He has lived and worked in both North and South Korea for 14 years. He has written seven books on the subject, including ``Negotiating With North Korea," and his most recent book, ``Living with the Enemy: Inside North Korea." He can be reached at richard.saccone@email.stvincent.edu.
By Richard Saccone
North Korea once again positioned itself at the head of the U.S. foreign policy queue by launching its most developed missile, the Taepodong-2, Sunday.
While the communist regime claimed it placed a satellite in space like its ally Iran did not long ago, American defense officials tracking the missile disputed the achievement, sticking to the charge that the launch was merely a poorly disguised attempt to conceal a test of North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology.
However, the penetrating question remains: How should the United States respond to the entire episode? Initially, the administration threatened to shoot down the missile, before wisely backing away. Then it called for sanctions, and finally returned to demands that the North cease launch preparations immediately.
After liftoff, the United States moved swiftly into verbal attack mode, condemning the action while plastering the North with fresh threats of punishment, including additional sanctions.
Unfortunately for the United States, all of these responses are counterproductive and doomed to continue generating the reverse of the intended effect.
Almost without exception, North Koreans stiffen in resolve when threatened, especially by the United States, a simple fact our officials appear unable to recognize after nearly 60 years of dealing with them across the negotiating table.
Our policy of confronting the North at every turn always produces the same affect: a continued escalation of hostile action by North Korea.
In the current situation, the North counter-threatened to shoot down U.S. spy planes and treat any foreign attempt to obstruct the launch as a provocation of war.
In addition, it holds two U.S. journalists hostage for illegally entering North Korea under the threat of a trial and severe penalty.
As we discovered during the negotiations with the North Koreans in the early part of this decade, they are capable, and sometimes difficult, negotiating adversaries, but are quite reasonable when approached in a sincere, logical manner free of threats.
The current U.S. government has fallen into the same trap as all the previous administrations since 1950, choosing the politically popular confrontational route instead of a more reasoned approach.
Especially in this instance, the North carefully respected international rules of notification, insisting the missile was meant for peaceful purposes.
The United States looked foolish, initially condemning the launch as a blatant cover for military purposes before announcing only a week later that its own satellite images showed the missile appeared to carry a satellite payload after all.
Unfortunately, U.S. officials suffer a history of knee-jerk overreactions to perceived North Korean aggression and being forced later to remove the egg from their own faces.
The North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) has since confirmed that the missile posed no threat to the United States at any time.
North Korea's clever method of following proper protocol as if it were launching a peaceful satellite blurred the argument for a tough international response by China and Russia, both of which are calling for moderation against the North.
The United States must stop pursuing its North Korea foreign policy in the national newspapers. Instead, it should replace public condemnation with private offers of improved relations in response to specific North Korean behavior.
Changing U.S. policy will not be easy because of the lengthy history of antagonism between the two countries.
However, America's new envoy to North Korea put it well, noting that the best policy is one of ``patience and perseverance." Dealing with the North is frustrating only because we continue employing the same failed tactics.
Hollow ultimatums coupled with meaningless resolutions are certain failures that play into the hands of hard-liners in the North Korean military.
One should expect a more sophisticated methodology from diplomats after decades of gaining no ground. It is time to consider alternatives that work, and there are several from which to choose.
Americans need not sacrifice their values or security to deal with North Koreans, but simply engage them from a collaborative mindset as opposed to an entrenched adversarial one. Such an approach has demonstrated success. Isn't it time we try it again?
Dr. Richard Saccone teaches international relations and political science at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa., the United States. He has lived and worked in both North and South Korea for 14 years. He has written seven books on the subject, including ``Negotiating With North Korea," and his most recent book, ``Living with the Enemy: Inside North Korea." He can be reached at richard.saccone@email.stvincent.edu.
The US was probably just lining up favours with Japan, Korea and possibly even China - worth a little egg on the face, especially if it is a low-rung government official's face.
As of today, there has been no proof spotted in orbit to justify Pyongyang's claim the launch fell under guidelines of the international community falling under their space program. As of today, the Japanese verified to the international communuty the range of the missile was 1900 miles. This proof has most likely helped Pyongyang promote a new foreign export in technology to nations the international community does not want to see.
As of today, there is no immediate threat to the USA from this missile test.
The fact Pyongyang can launch a missile as they did on Sunday does not even match the capabilities of Iran.
People in the free world would like to help Iran to have better power sources, but their inability to recognize human rights in the world arena's eyes and their unfortunate stance regarding the existence of Israel's Jews, coupled with Tehran's constant threats to destroy Israel, has left the world with yet another big problem to deal with. The current administration's willingness to cooperate with Iran in the face of their threats to destroy Israel is leaving Israel in a strange predicament.
The AQ Quan ring's exposure years ago made known many facts regarding the sharing of technologies from Pyongyang to other countries seeking nuclear weapon and delivery system technologies, though many have too soon forgotten the implications regarding those issues.
There is much more going on than meets the eye.
As of today, there is no immediate threat to the USA from this missile test.
The fact Pyongyang can launch a missile as they did on Sunday does not even match the capabilities of Iran.
People in the free world would like to help Iran to have better power sources, but their inability to recognize human rights in the world arena's eyes and their unfortunate stance regarding the existence of Israel's Jews, coupled with Tehran's constant threats to destroy Israel, has left the world with yet another big problem to deal with. The current administration's willingness to cooperate with Iran in the face of their threats to destroy Israel is leaving Israel in a strange predicament.
The AQ Quan ring's exposure years ago made known many facts regarding the sharing of technologies from Pyongyang to other countries seeking nuclear weapon and delivery system technologies, though many have too soon forgotten the implications regarding those issues.
There is much more going on than meets the eye.
S
Shai Gar
If they've got nukes and ICBMs, Good.
I'd like to see nations go to the NEGOTIATING tables with them, rather than threaten the shit out of them.
I'd like to see nations go to the NEGOTIATING tables with them, rather than threaten the shit out of them.
Israel always enjoyed a strange alliance. As Shai Gar says, REAL negotiations may actually begin to occur the way things are going.
Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons. They neither threaten nor negotiate with them(if they have them)(they guess 300 warheads several years ago). However, a nation ruled by Sharia Law threatens the destruction of Israel constantly and religiously.
Don't you find that interesting? I do.
The USA and Russia are dismantling their nuclear warheads while other countries are building them. I find that interesting, too.
Hint: As long as threatening nations seek nuclear capabilities, stop reducing the number of warheads in your arsenals. Why just make it easier for Sharia Law to take over in the coming decades?
Don't you find that interesting? I do.
The USA and Russia are dismantling their nuclear warheads while other countries are building them. I find that interesting, too.
Hint: As long as threatening nations seek nuclear capabilities, stop reducing the number of warheads in your arsenals. Why just make it easier for Sharia Law to take over in the coming decades?
S
Shai Gar
I find it alarming how close those that wish to spread Sharia Law worldwide are so close to power in Afghanistan(plenty of drug money) and Pakistan(nuclear capabilities). I find it alarming so few others see the real danger.
We all know how they feel toward the many homosexuals there are coming out of their closets. Maybe they should think about it from their own personal perspectives a moment.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
eehhh wrong.
America put the drug dealers in charge, the taliban were actively killing the drug trade in afghanistan until the US put the northern alliance in power.
Any proof of that? Maybe a quick search of the Tears of Allah would be enlightening...
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/heroin.htm
Last edited:
Realistically speaking, I don't think we have much to worry about from North Korea. It might be best to just let them build their nukes, because I doubt Kim Jong Il or any future North Korean leader would be dumb enough to actually use them. It seems more likely that they're just using the idle threat of their nuclear program to get more energy packages and bonuses from negotiations. If we pay them to halt their programs, then of course they're going to start them up again in order to get a bigger check the second time around.
Worth the watch, 45 minutes of past history
http://video.google.com/videosearch...sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#
http://video.google.com/videosearch...sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#