NORTH KOREA THREAD 'Will Put a Torch to New York' [Archive]

irbodden

03-09-2003, 08:15 AM

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html

North Korea would launch a ballistic missile attack on the United States if Washington made a pre-emptive strike against the communist state's nuclear facility, the man described as Pyongyang's "unofficial spokesman" claimed yesterday.

Kim Myong-chol, who has links to the Stalinist regime, told reporters in Tokyo that a US strike on the nuclear facility at Yongbyon "means nuclear war".

"If American forces carry out a pre-emptive strike on the Yongbyon facility, North Korea will immediately target, carry the war to the US mainland," he said, adding that New York, Washington and Chicago would be "aflame".

A pre-emptive strike on Yongbyon is one of the strategic options in the crisis over North Korea's nuclear arms program. The US has deployed 24 long-range bombers to the Pacific base of Guam capable of launching such a strike.

Mr Kim, who has written a text studied by North Korean military leaders, predicted North Korea would restart its reprocessing plant to make weapons-grade plutonium this month.

A nuclear weapon would be produced by the end of next month, with another five by the end of the year, he said. This was on top of a suspected nuclear arsenal of 100 weapons.

The ultimate aim of North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, was the "neutralisation of the American factor" in the region, Mr Kim said.

This would be achieved by striking a non-aggression pact with the US or becoming an "official" nuclear power, thereby making the US nuclear umbrella in the region irrelevant. "Both ways, Kim Jong-il is a winner," Mr Kim said.

"By the end of the year, I predict Bush will be in Pyongyang suing for peace," Mr Kim said. While his comments are extreme, they match the heated and belligerent rhetoric of North Korea, which has previously warned of nuclear war and turning the cities of its enemies into a "sea of ashes".

The Bush Administration yesterday made renewed calls on China and other countries in the region to help broker a solution to the crisis. In his live televised press conference, Mr Bush said North Korea's nuclear program was a regional issue.

"I say 'regional' because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake into whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons," Mr Bush said. "We've got a stake as to whether North Korea has nuclear weapons. China clearly has a stake as to whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon."

The Bush Administration is pushing for multilateral talks with North Korea but the communist state wants direct talks with Washington.

In the meantime, diplomatic activity is continuing behind the scenes. "We have a number of diplomatic initiatives under way - some of them very, very quietly under way - to see if we cannot get a multilateral dialogue started," the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told a US Senate Committee.

Yesterday the US also flagged the possible withdrawal of its 37,000 troops from South Korea, part of the rethink of a deployment in place since the end of the Korean War in 1953.

The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said the US was consulting with South Korea and he suspected "we'll end up making some adjustments there".

"Whether the forces come home or whether they will move further south of the [Korean] peninsula or whether to some neighbouring area are the kinds of things that are being sorted out," he said at a "town hall" meeting in Germany.

Xen

03-09-2003, 08:21 AM

I liked how they called this guy "Pyongyang's "unofficial spokesman"". That really hurts the credibility of this article.

irbodden

03-09-2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Xen
I liked how they called this guy "Pyongyang's "unofficial spokesman"". That really hurts the credibility of this article.

Except......

This is the same huff and puff coming out of EVERY North Korean. They are crazier then Hussein....

Tunaman

03-09-2003, 09:33 AM

Bring it!:mad:

Remington

03-09-2003, 10:29 AM

Take the regime out! :rolleyes:

aaron_mag

03-09-2003, 10:37 AM

North Korea CANNOT hit Chicago and New York with nuclear missles. Their missiles do not have the range. A more likely retaliation would be against Japanese and South Korean cities.

I'd say the article is very suspect. You don't see this stuff in the TV news or the paper. Someone linked to the N. Korean government saying, "New York would be in flames" would make front page news.

darklord

03-09-2003, 11:46 AM

North Korea is a joke. The whole country is starving, and they're making empty threats to the US... they'd be stupid to attack. If any country attacked the United States, they'd be in for a world of hurt, since our allies would actually support us.

Kevmaster

03-09-2003, 11:52 AM

yeh, they would not attack the US. that would mean the immediate end of their country, probably by use of nuclear force. Weve threatened it with Iraq twice already(once in '91 and in this upcomming war) and our nuclear capability greatly outweighs their power. they wouldnt dare attack the US with a full nuclear strike...of their two '80s era nukes

InfinatyBPS

03-09-2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by aaron_mag
North Korea CANNOT hit Chicago and New York with nuclear missles.

But, they can hit the west coast of the US...

AndrewShope

03-09-2003, 01:22 PM

They'll most likely screw something up and blow the nuke up on themselves...

Kevmaster

03-09-2003, 01:28 PM

true, and they also dont have 100 nukes.

but nonetheless, if they launched ONE nuke at us, we would blow them out of the water

spydervenom

03-09-2003, 02:08 PM

if they were to launch one at the US, it would be blown up in mid-air as to not kill many if any people.

the only chance they have is if they do it like them arabs on 24

Fred

03-09-2003, 02:16 PM

I don't think they could hit the US mainland. No way, their last missle tests barely made it over Japan...

"North Korea Nukes Alleutian(sp?) Islands! Thousands of tons of useless rock rendered uninhabitable! Casualties: 1 gull and 4 seals!"

Come on fellas...

Sooner or later the north Korean people will figure out: If we boot this guy, we'll be able to get food!

I am worried though for our forces in South Korea, they are in range of whatever the commies have, and are up against one of the largest standing armies in the world.

---Fred

cphilip

03-09-2003, 02:27 PM

Actually there is new evidence that they indeed have a missle that can reach anywhere in the US. Korea is a prime example of why when at war you realy must finish it and not settle for apeasment. This is a country that has the capability to export Weapons to terrorists and the financial need to make money doing it. And an example of an apeasement policy that dates back from the 50's. It never was settled and we all know now that for some of these Dictatorial nations they cannot do anything but want to take over others assets rather than make their own. Note that South Korea, under a free economy, has blossomed and its GNP is 800 times higher than North Korea. A example of how Dictatorial Militarisitic countries just do not prosper. And eventualy turn to War and conquest to overcome their faults. But this is unfinished business just like Iraq. Only older. Korea is a prime example of what Iraq can become. And Iran may already be. And its business our predecessors failed to finish. And we will have to finish it soon.

Most ofter Korea just needs money to feed it people. And more likely they will get it. But not without some real concessions this time I hope. It was not too many years back they got paid off to stop this. Now they have run out of that. They will be required to verify destruction of these weapons or starve this time I hope. And hopefully the UN will show some backbone this time and back that up. The countries in the region have even more at stake in thier own defense in Korea than they do in Iraq. For China, Russia and Japan, as well, it in thier own back yard and its a real threat to thier security. The will help put the screws on. Don't count on France though. Most likely they have financial interests there too. Germany? Who knows. But again this is an example of what happens when you let small dictators the time and effort to develop WMD's and they will then use them for blackmail. Cause by that time thats all they have. It economic success by blackmail not effort. Under thier rule they cannot be free enough to be succesfull on thier own. And so what rescources they have they use to arm and take. Or gain by blackmail.

Restola

03-09-2003, 03:18 PM

Missle defense is sounding like a good idea right about now. Another example of Bush being months ahead of the rest of the country.

I'm already starting to wonder what we are about to learn about Iran (the last "axis of evil" country).

aaron_mag

03-09-2003, 06:11 PM

Restola is right! We need a missile defense system like the French needed the maginot line:p.

cphillip-

Don't you think the generals etc. had good reason to call for a truce in the Korean war. Look at how the situation has changed....we probably would have fought a war with China had the Korean War continued. While China is not an ally they definetely are not in support of N. Korea right now. N. Korea is an isolated country on the brink of falling apart. Also you speak of finishing the job when the world was a much different place back then. The US was not the only super power at that time. All of this shows the great wisdom of our predecessors rather than their failures.

1stdeadeye

03-09-2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by aaron_mag
cphillip-

Don't you think the generals etc. had good reason to call for a truce in the Korean war. Look at how the situation has changed....we probably would have fought a war with China had the Korean War continued. While China is not an ally they definetely are not in support of N. Korea right now. N. Korea is an isolated country on the brink of falling apart. Also you speak of finishing the job when the world was a much different place back then. The US was not the only super power at that time. All of this shows the great wisdom of our predecessors rather than their failures.

You are so wrong! MacArthur(the General who was running the war at the time) wanted to finish off North Korea and then roll into Japan. He also asked for permission to use the Nuke! At that point in time, rolling over China would not have been exceedingly difficult. They had no nuclear arsenal and they were still rebuilding from their Civil War and Japanese Occupation. Truman was afraid of appearing racist in history as if the fact that the only nukes ever used were only dropped on Asians. Truman actually fired MacArthur over this. Had we let Gen. MacArthur run the war the way he wanted, there would be only one Korea today! Don't forget, the Chinese didn't officially enter the war until MacArthur pushed the NKs to the Chinese border. All China brought to the fight was manpower. The technology was Russian as were most of North Korea's fighter pilots! Tactical Nuclear Weapons kind of eliminate the manpower advantage! The Generals wanted to win this war. The politicians wouldn't let them. Sound Familiar? *cough* UN *cough*

Brit Hume on Fox News this morning had a great point. He stated that the UN will authorize this (Iraqi War Resolution) for fear not of becoming irrelavant, for they already are, but for fear of being exposed as such. Look at the last major police action we did. Clinton grew a set and stoped Milosevic after the UN and EU refused to step in. The EU was happy to step in and share credit after the US did the dirty work!

FreshmanBob

03-09-2003, 07:59 PM

1stdeadeye, if MacArthur had attacked China,

1 he obviously DIDNT have the man power to do it because the Chinese pushed us back to where we started from and China still had huge amounts of men readily available that they could get to the front faster than we could. Didn't Vietnam show you that manpower with guerilla warfare can and will beat technology?

2 probably would've started a 3rd world war if Russia, China's ally decided to help out even more. Tactical nuclear weapons?

3. We use nukes, then what if russia shares some more of their technology and uses nukes too? It could even escalate onto attacks on the US, and the whole MAD theory comes into play. If not, we'd be using so many against the 700 or 800 million chinese that there'd be untold environmental damage, not to mention that little nuclear winter thing. Everytime you let off a nuke theres massive radiation clouds that can go thousands of miles. That means into China or on our own troups.

I am EXTREMELY glad that people with your same views don't run this government.

Dayspring

03-09-2003, 08:07 PM

Why they all have to pick on New York?

FESTUS33

03-09-2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Kevmaster
nonetheless, if they launched ONE nuke at us, we would blow them out of the water

No We Would'nt
We'd Knock They're Nuke out in the Stratosphere,
And then say SEEE!!! And the rest of the world
would say {Do With Them What You Will.} :p
The Winner Of The Next European War, Has Too Keep France. :D :D :D

FreshmanBob

03-09-2003, 09:03 PM

Actually if they have inter continental ballistic missles, not just a scud with a nuke (or something similar) theres no real way to do that. It'd be traveling somewhere around 12000-16000 mph. Even speedy gonzolaz can't help us then, and when speedy can't help, its a sad sad day.

Your thinking of the patriot, it works against cruise missles and isn't even close to 100% accurate.

cphilip

03-09-2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by FreshmanBob
1stdeadeye, if MacArthur had attacked China,

1 he obviously DIDNT have the man power to do it because the Chinese pushed us back to where we started from and China still had huge amounts of men readily available that they could get to the front faster than we could. Didn't Vietnam show you that manpower with guerilla warfare can and will beat technology?

2 probably would've started a 3rd world war if Russia, China's ally decided to help out even more. Tactical nuclear weapons?

3. We use nukes, then what if russia shares some more of their technology and uses nukes too? It could even escalate onto attacks on the US, and the whole MAD theory comes into play. If not, we'd be using so many against the 700 or 800 million chinese that there'd be untold environmental damage, not to mention that little nuclear winter thing. Everytime you let off a nuke theres massive radiation clouds that can go thousands of miles. That means into China or on our own troups.

I am EXTREMELY glad that people with your same views don't run this government.

Actually that is not so at all. You need to read up on that. In fact we did the same things as we all did in Vietnam. We decided not to go in and finish them off. We could have and would have. China never pushed us anywhere. they had some troups over there clandestinely. And we knew it and in fact captured many of them. We just decided to protect a line and not cross it. And they were not capable of dealing with us if we had of wanted to finish it at all. Neither was Russia at the time. That was early in the cold war. And later we have discovered they never had the stuff we thought that they had even in the late 60's. We had our fill of War by that time so soon after WWII and didn't have the stomach or guts to do it. And we are paying for it even now. Allways have a goal and finish it off is the lesson we learned from both that and Vietnam and now Iraq...

I do not espouse the use of tactical neuclear Weapons. And our Administration does not either. None of them are deployed. We don't need them for this. But rest assured if someone fires first they will come out of mothballs and should. You seriously do not want to NOT have them against these kinds of ruthless people who DO have them.

China and Russia do have a vested interest now in stopping North Korea and will assist. Niether can afford the aftermath of them getting too out of line.

aaron_mag

03-09-2003, 10:00 PM

cphillip- your argument does not hold water. China had a vested interest in N. Korea and definetely would have entered a conventional war against us.

1stdeadeye- you miserable jerk!;) For a poly sci major you are pretty well informed on history. Yes what you say about Truman and MacArthur is true. I think, however, that Truman actually started loading nuclear bombs when talks of truce broke down with N. Korea. I remember hearing that the US military leaked their deployment to N. Korea to let them know that we were tired of their screwing with us during negotiations. That brought compliance from them.

Whether it MacArthurs way would have been "better" is an interesting question. On one hand we certainly would have won the Korean war. On the other hand we would have set a precendent to the world of "if you got them use them". It could be argued that Trumans restraint caused them to be thought of as a last resort weapon (for us as well as our adversaries)

UThomas

03-09-2003, 10:38 PM

Actually if they have inter continental ballistic missles, not just a scud with a nuke (or something similar) theres no real way to do that. It'd be traveling somewhere around 12000-16000 mph. Even speedy gonzolaz can't help us then, and when speedy can't help, its a sad sad day.

But the goal of the missle defense system is to hit it in the boost stage, right? In fact the plane they buzzed the other week was capable of detecting balistic missle launches.

Restola

03-10-2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by UThomas
But the goal of the missle defense system is to hit it in the boost stage, right?
If that was the goal, then we would have to have our missile defense in every country.

I dont know the details, but I doubt they'd have to be so close together.

cphilip

03-10-2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by aaron_mag
cphillip- your argument does not hold water. China had a vested interest in N. Korea and definetely would have entered a conventional war against us.

Ummm... I never said they wouldn't have fought us! Where did you get that from? I said we would have won!

aaron_mag

03-10-2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by cphilip

Ummm... I never said they wouldn't have fought us! Where did you get that from? I said we would have won!

If you are saying that we should have followed MacArthur's plan (brought up by 1stdeadeye) to win the Korean War I'd say you have a interesting point. If, however, you mean we should have continued a conventional war versus Korea and China to win it that would have been fool hardy.

As for Vietnam there is no doubt that our military performed very well and won every major engagement. The reason we lost the war, however, relates to a story that my dad's friend told me. They would get into a firefight in a village and he would listen to his commander radio in that they had only one person had been killed and one wounded. He would look at this pathetic little village and think to himself, "someone DIED in a fight over this mud hovel!" In other words it wasn't worth continued loss of our soldiers lives to "win" the war.

FreshmanBob

03-10-2003, 01:57 PM

Unless we somehow reverted back to our military status during WW2, we probably wouldn't have been able to take on China. If what i said isn't true, then why did our troops get pushed back to the present day border? Why did we ask for a peace treaty and negotiate it? It was because of the massive numbers of chinese soldiers that had filtered through our defenses when we were close to the border. China wanted to start a complete war with us to unify the country after their civil war, thats why they helped korea in the first place.

The Frymarker

03-10-2003, 02:04 PM

Does anyone remember Star Wars? Not the movie but the defense mechanism put into effect by the senior George Bush back in the Ninties?

We would most likely use that to defend ourselves.

Also I heard and I don't know how factual this is, but we have made a pinging device that can shut down their power for an entire city. A long the lines of a radio active sound wave or pulse. Rendering everything useless.

So I really think that Bush has something planned for them and he is just not stating or putting emphasis because he doesn't want a leak as to what will happen.

Just opinions not facts:D

Trench

03-10-2003, 02:09 PM

Anyone concider the fact that if we can make nukes then we can catch them in mid air?

Sound stupid?

What about a million dollar un-manned aricraft... you run one of those into the nuke and completly distroy it mid air... Not unlikely... In fact, very likely...

Also, if they try to hit our carries in the Pacific it wont work either...

All Carriers have a gun that can make a wall of bullets that the missle will hit and explode mid air again...

Just remember... If we can make um we can stop um...

1stdeadeye

03-10-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by FreshmanBob
1stdeadeye, if MacArthur had attacked China,

1 he obviously DIDNT have the man power to do it because the Chinese pushed us back to where we started from and China still had huge amounts of men readily available that they could get to the front faster than we could. Didn't Vietnam show you that manpower with guerilla warfare can and will beat technology?

2 probably would've started a 3rd world war if Russia, China's ally decided to help out even more. Tactical nuclear weapons?

3. We use nukes, then what if russia shares some more of their technology and uses nukes too? It could even escalate onto attacks on the US, and the whole MAD theory comes into play. If not, we'd be using so many against the 700 or 800 million chinese that there'd be untold environmental damage, not to mention that little nuclear winter thing. Everytime you let off a nuke theres massive radiation clouds that can go thousands of miles. That means into China or on our own troups.

I am EXTREMELY glad that people with your same views don't run this government.

My views? What I stated was MacAuthur's battleplans. Would it have worked. Yes, It think so. At that point in time, Russia was a fledgling nuclear power at best. Would their bombers have made it here. Doubtfull. Would ours have made it there. Doubtfull. We both had very decent fighter/intercepters that would have stopped most if not all of the bombers. You can't intercept a tactical nuke. MacArthur wanted that to offset the Chinese manpower advantage. Also, once MacArthur recovered from the Chinese invasion, we pushed them back to the current DMZ.

BTW a tactical nuclear weapon is a low yield nuke shot from a very big cannon. It is for use on the battlefield, not a bomb to be dropped. The mushroom cloud depends on the size of the nuke. No nuclear winter in Japan was there?:p Tactical nukes are still in the U.S. nuclear arsenal so I guess they are not that bad of an idea, eh?

einhander619

03-10-2003, 11:07 PM

Hey all, I just wanted to thank everyone for keeping this very political argument relevant, civil, and engaging.

My stance on the issue is this:

If N. Korea made any aggressive move against the US or its allies, we should smash them like bugs, key word SHOULD. I believe that ever since the korean war, the US has lost its ability to fight a proper war. Be it politicians or the UN(Un-Necessary!) someone is trying to keep the world's most powerful and effective fighting force from doing its job.
It is for that reason that I am against the Iraq(or any) war that will happen, but not the one that NEEDS to happen. If the US armed forces were left to do what they do best, at least relatives of those killed could feel at peace with the knowledge that their deaths were not meaningless.

I'm against the war, but I'm for every soldier over there. Good luck, fight hard.

aaron_mag

03-11-2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

My views? What I stated was MacAuthur's battleplans. Would it have worked. Yes, It think so. At that point in time, Russia was a fledgling nuclear power at best. Would their bombers have made it here. Doubtfull. Would ours have made it there. Doubtfull. We both had very decent fighter/intercepters that would have stopped most if not all of the bombers. You can't intercept a tactical nuke. MacArthur wanted that to offset the Chinese manpower advantage. Also, once MacArthur recovered from the Chinese invasion, we pushed them back to the current DMZ.

BTW a tactical nuclear weapon is a low yield nuke shot from a very big cannon. It is for use on the battlefield, not a bomb to be dropped. The mushroom cloud depends on the size of the nuke. No nuclear winter in Japan was there?:p Tactical nukes are still in the U.S. nuclear arsenal so I guess they are not that bad of an idea, eh?

Interesting that this much more interesting debate has been ignored isn't it. Sort of like the real world.

First off as you mentioned MacArthur was devising battle plans as a general and I will not argue it was a good plan. Politicians, however, have to worry about polical ramifications. The real issue here is what would have been the ramifications if Truman had accepted this plan. Would nukes have worked their way into general warfare rather than last resort options. If the US had used nukes in Korea or if they start using low yield nuclear devices it will/would have set a dangerous precedent. Instead nuclear power has developed as a deterrent versus a battle plan option. Considering these issues Truman might have made the right choice, eh?

1stdeadeye

03-11-2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by aaron_mag

Interesting that this much more interesting debate has been ignored isn't it. Sort of like the real world.

First off as you mentioned MacArthur was devising battle plans as a general and I will not argue it was a good plan. Politicians, however, have to worry about polical ramifications. The real issue here is what would have been the ramifications if Truman had accepted this plan. Would nukes have worked their way into general warfare rather than last resort options. If the US had used nukes in Korea or if they start using low yield nuclear devices it will/would have set a dangerous precedent. Instead nuclear power has developed as a deterrent versus a battle plan option. Considering these issues Truman might have made the right choice, eh?

Not really. Think about this. NK is the biggest threat to overt nuclear proliferation right now. Had MacArthur ended that and the Chinese threat then, where would we be now? China and Taiwan could have been one democratic country. Stalin could have been intimidated into not entering into an arms race. Lot's of ifs and buts could apply here. Also, a low yield tactical nuke has very little radioactive fallout. It won't yield a monster mushroom cloud. It is more of a terror weapon. One of those most likely would have set the Chinese into full retreat. I am not argueing for their use, but pointing out MacArthur's positiona dn arguement. I am not some nuke em all reactionary, but MacArthur's battleplan had a lot of merit to it. Remember, Korea was the first "limited" war. Up to that point, all of out conflicts had been of the total war variety (see WWII).

Rebel46_99

03-11-2003, 02:21 PM

Another interesting point...

In Europe, after stopping the Germans, Gen. George Patton wanted to keep going and take out the Soviets, but Eisenhower wouldn't let him.

DW

aaron_mag

03-11-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

Not really. Think about this. NK is the biggest threat to overt nuclear proliferation right now. Had MacArthur ended that and the Chinese threat then, where would we be now? China and Taiwan could have been one democratic country. Stalin could have been intimidated into not entering into an arms race. Lot's of ifs and buts could apply here. Also, a low yield tactical nuke has very little radioactive fallout. It won't yield a monster mushroom cloud. It is more of a terror weapon. One of those most likely would have set the Chinese into full retreat. I am not argueing for their use, but pointing out MacArthur's positiona dn arguement. I am not some nuke em all reactionary, but MacArthur's battleplan had a lot of merit to it. Remember, Korea was the first "limited" war. Up to that point, all of out conflicts had been of the total war variety (see WWII).

Okay I thought about it and decided that you need to get out of banking and get into science fiction writing. Please do not try and tell me that you believe that MacArthurs plan for Korea (note Korea) would have caused this miraculous domino effect that would have negated the cold war and cause Taiwan and China to embrace each other. Next I'll be expecting you to say that MacArthur's Korean plan would have solved all the middle east problems as well.

The Soviet Union and China still would have been our adversaries. They still would have developed nuclear programs and may even been more prone to use tactical nuclear weapons in their own conflicts (following our precedence). MacArthur's plan might have brought victory in Korea but it might have been even more unfavorable in the long run for the world at large.

1stdeadeye

03-11-2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by aaron_mag

Okay I thought about it and decided that you need to get out of banking and get into science fiction writing. Please do not try and tell me that you believe that MacArthurs plan for Korea (note Korea) would have caused this miraculous domino effect that would have negated the cold war and cause Taiwan and China to embrace each other. Next I'll be expecting you to say that MacArthur's Korean plan would have solved all the middle east problems as well.

The Soviet Union and China still would have been our adversaries. They still would have developed nuclear programs and may even been more prone to use tactical nuclear weapons in their own conflicts (following our precedence). MacArthur's plan might have brought victory in Korea but it might have been even more unfavorable in the long run for the world at large.

I also wrote "There are lots of IFS and BUTS". Anything is possible when we start going into hypotheticals. The Taiwan/China was aimed at defeating the Communist Chinese and bringing in the Nationalist Chinese from Taiwan to re-establish democracy in China. Not too far fetched when you consider we could have defeated China at that point with the use of nuclear weapons. Also just cause we nuke you doesn't mean we can't be friends later, ask Japan;) !

aaron_mag

03-11-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

I also wrote "There are lots of IFS and BUTS".

Yes that was the most intelligent part of your post! :D I will concede that we don't know what the result would have been of MacArthur's plan. You MUST concede, however, that your outline was a tad on the optimistic side....I was waiting for you to say that as a result we would have all had flying cars and the Level 10 bolt would have come out in the early 90s as a result of the MacArthur plan.

Jack_Dubious

03-11-2003, 08:28 PM

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/030310/heller.jpg

JDub

Hasty8

03-11-2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by InfinatyBPS

But, they can hit the west coast of the US...

Infinaty, relax and sleep well tonight. The current Taepo-dong 1 missile can only carry a 1,000-kilogram nuclear bomb for about 2,500 kilometers, not enough to reach the US. It could also carry lighter biological or chemical weapons for 4,100 kilometers, but it would still be about 400 kilometers short of the two closest parts of America - the tip of Alaska and the Hawaii islands. However, the untested Taepo-dong 2 missile can just barely reach Alaska.

California is so far out of their range that it's scary. All that they could do was to have missles in a ship off our coast, not all that unlike a ballistic sub, which could launch a stirke on us. However, they have no subs capable of that and to be able to hide that type of a setup on a commercial vessel is almost impossible.

SyntaxError

03-12-2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by irbodden
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html

North Korea would launch a ballistic missile attack on the United States if Washington made a pre-emptive strike against the communist state's nuclear facility, the man described as Pyongyang's "unofficial spokesman" claimed yesterday.

Kim Myong-chol, who has links to the Stalinist regime, told reporters in Tokyo that a US strike on the nuclear facility at Yongbyon "means nuclear war".

"If American forces carry out a pre-emptive strike on the Yongbyon facility, North Korea will immediately target, carry the war to the US mainland," he said, adding that New York, Washington and Chicago would be "aflame".

A pre-emptive strike on Yongbyon is one of the strategic options in the crisis over North Korea's nuclear arms program. The US has deployed 24 long-range bombers to the Pacific base of Guam capable of launching such a strike.

Mr Kim, who has written a text studied by North Korean military leaders, predicted North Korea would restart its reprocessing plant to make weapons-grade plutonium this month.

A nuclear weapon would be produced by the end of next month, with another five by the end of the year, he said. This was on top of a suspected nuclear arsenal of 100 weapons.

The ultimate aim of North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, was the "neutralisation of the American factor" in the region, Mr Kim said.

This would be achieved by striking a non-aggression pact with the US or becoming an "official" nuclear power, thereby making the US nuclear umbrella in the region irrelevant. "Both ways, Kim Jong-il is a winner," Mr Kim said.

"By the end of the year, I predict Bush will be in Pyongyang suing for peace," Mr Kim said. While his comments are extreme, they match the heated and belligerent rhetoric of North Korea, which has previously warned of nuclear war and turning the cities of its enemies into a "sea of ashes".

The Bush Administration yesterday made renewed calls on China and other countries in the region to help broker a solution to the crisis. In his live televised press conference, Mr Bush said North Korea's nuclear program was a regional issue.

"I say 'regional' because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake into whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons," Mr Bush said. "We've got a stake as to whether North Korea has nuclear weapons. China clearly has a stake as to whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon."

The Bush Administration is pushing for multilateral talks with North Korea but the communist state wants direct talks with Washington.

In the meantime, diplomatic activity is continuing behind the scenes. "We have a number of diplomatic initiatives under way - some of them very, very quietly under way - to see if we cannot get a multilateral dialogue started," the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told a US Senate Committee.

Yesterday the US also flagged the possible withdrawal of its 37,000 troops from South Korea, part of the rethink of a deployment in place since the end of the Korean War in 1953.

The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said the US was consulting with South Korea and he suspected "we'll end up making some adjustments there".

"Whether the forces come home or whether they will move further south of the [Korean] peninsula or whether to some neighbouring area are the kinds of things that are being sorted out," he said at a "town hall" meeting in Germany.

There is a VERY simple solution to this- KILL THEM ALL. They wanna talk big, they can sort it out with Buddha or whoever.

1stdeadeye

03-12-2003, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by SyntaxError

There is a VERY simple solution to this- KILL THEM ALL. They wanna talk big, they can sort it out with Buddha or whoever.

I think that Hitler offered up that same kind of solution.:(

Maybe killing all of the innocents is a bit much just cause their totalitarian state is run by madmen. You think? Besides, wiping out an entire country would kind of take away any moral high ground the US enjoys.

aaron_mag

03-12-2003, 11:27 PM

1stdeadeye and I are in agreement. Shock of shocks!

oldsoldier

03-13-2003, 01:58 AM

Little update on NK's "forces" from my bro who did 2 years there; apparently, come spring, their army is immobile due to the thaw for about 2 months. Hm....maybe I should let ole George know this...

Miscue

03-13-2003, 08:52 AM

Although NK may have nuclear devices, they are a non-threat to the US. We know where all their stuff is at, we know what they have, we can detect activity and what not as well as a launch... our subs and stuff situated in South Korea can obliterate their entire country or select regions if need be within minutes (it takes longer to get approval than it does to blow them up)... but we don't need to because we can easily neutralize any of their long range weapons. The missiles that they have, although nuclear and dangerous, are a complete joke, the kind of technology they have has been around since the 60's or so... heck, better stuff was available. Personally, I think nuclear devices that can be carried or shot by artillery are a much bigger danger than missiles, especially to neighboring countries.

The US by far has the best stuff when it comes to warfare technology. We don't even need to use really high tech sci-fi'ish type stuff - lasers, EMP crap, etc... (you know they got all sorts of toys, it's just kept secret) to deal with their "threat."

Nothing to worry about...

1stdeadeye

03-13-2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Miscue
Although NK may have nuclear devices, they are a non-threat to the US. We know where all their stuff is at, we know what they have, we can detect activity and what not as well as a launch... our subs and stuff situated in South Korea can obliterate their entire country or select regions if need be within minutes (it takes longer to get approval than it does to blow them up)... but we don't need to because we can easily neutralize any of their long range weapons. The missiles that they have, although nuclear and dangerous, are a complete joke, the kind of technology they have has been around since the 60's or so... heck, better stuff was available. Personally, I think nuclear devices that can be carried or shot by artillery are a much bigger danger than missiles, especially to neighboring countries.

The US by far has the best stuff when it comes to warfare technology. We don't even need to use really high tech sci-fi'ish type stuff - lasers, EMP crap, etc... (you know they got all sorts of toys, it's just kept secret) to deal with their "threat."

Nothing to worry about...

There is no doubt that we can overwhelm and destroy NK. I do think that there is a lot to worry about. They can sell those nukes to people with lots of money. Remember, Osama is still a Billionaire even after the Saudis froze every asset of his they could find. That is what scare me about NK, not the threat of them, but the threat of their sales.

aaron_mag

03-13-2003, 12:07 PM

NK does not want to sell nuclear bombs to terrorist. That is the same as saying, "I want the US to pave over my country." One of the reasons they want a non-agression pact with the US is so the current regime can maintain its power. How would being destroyed by the US keep him in power?

Don't get me wrong. The nukes scare me...but then the nukes in Pakistan and India scare me as well.

Jack_Dubious

03-13-2003, 02:20 PM

There are only 2 things in world that scare me, and nuclear war is one of them.

JDub

1stdeadeye

03-13-2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by aaron_mag
NK does not want to sell nuclear bombs to terrorist. That is the same as saying, "I want the US to pave over my country." One of the reasons they want a non-agression pact with the US is so the current regime can maintain its power. How would being destroyed by the US keep him in power?

Don't get me wrong. The nukes scare me...but then the nukes in Pakistan and India scare me as well.

It is amazing what a large amount of cash can accomplish when the seller is in deep doodoo. Money talks and BS walks! ;)

NK has shown that they will sell to any government with money. My fear is that the Middle East could soon be full of nuclear powers!

aaron_mag

03-13-2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

It is amazing what a large amount of cash can accomplish when the seller is in deep doodoo. Money talks and BS walks! ;)

NK has shown that they will sell to any government with money. My fear is that the Middle East could soon be full of nuclear powers!

Don't see it the same way. Selling nukes could not garner the same amount of wealth that they will lose in sanctions and lack of US aid. Their goal is not to sell nukes to terrorists. They want dialogue and non aggression with the US.

Jack Dubious-

What is the other one? Is it carnies?:D

einhander619

03-14-2003, 01:21 AM

I doubt we send any official aid to NK, simply because of the whole monroe doctrine "don't support communism in any way" sort of things. NK would definitely sell their nukes, no matter what the US thinks. I mean, these people are crazy enough to pursue a nuke program instead of feed their citizens.

aaron_mag,

hey, what part of p-town do you live in? What is your home field?

aaron_mag

03-14-2003, 01:27 AM

I live in SE Portland in the Laurelhurst neighborhood. I typically play at Weekend Warriors, Splat Action, or Warpaint Outdoor (when they have one of their Super Games):)

Jack_Dubious

03-14-2003, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by aaron_mag

Jack Dubious-

What is the other one? Is it carnies?:D
(dammit aaron...dont ruin it..:p)

Carnies. Circus folk.
Nomads, you know. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.

:D
JDub

1stdeadeye

03-14-2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by einhander619
I doubt we send any official aid to NK, simply because of the whole monroe doctrine "don't support communism in any way" sort of things. NK would definitely sell their nukes, no matter what the US thinks. I mean, these people are crazy enough to pursue a nuke program instead of feed their citizens.

Until they restarted their nuke program, we were sending NK tons of food and fuel oil to help care for their people. We are sending them nothing now! That is why I am woried about Nuke sales! They need money!

aaron_mag

03-14-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

Until they restarted their nuke program, we were sending NK tons of food and fuel oil to help care for their people. We are sending them nothing now! That is why I am woried about Nuke sales! They need money!

Yes this is correct. We were sending them aid which is why I say reactivating a nuclear reactor to sell weapons for a gross amount that will be LESS than the aid they were receiving makes no sense. They are not looking at selling nukes to terrorists.

1stdeadeye

03-14-2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by aaron_mag

Yes this is correct. We were sending them aid which is why I say reactivating a nuclear reactor to sell weapons for a gross amount that will be LESS than the aid they were receiving makes no sense. They are not looking at selling nukes to terrorists.

We gave them a lot, but how much would a nuke go for? We didn't give them billions in aid. Think about it. THey sell everyother piece of military equipment they make. Think SCUDS bound for Yemen. ;)

Hasty8

03-14-2003, 01:48 PM

Since the Clinton adminstration PyonGyang has shredded just about every non-proliferation agreement that they have signed.

Besides the very likely possiblity that a few weapons could be sold to rouge organizations with less than peaceful intentions there is a second, much more important, yet not nearly as loudly vocalized possibility.

If the US, and other leading nuclear countries, do not step up tp the plate and "pusish" Kim Jong II for his trangressions that what is to stop other Asian and Middles Eastern countries from upholding their own non-proliferation agreements?

One of the major concern we have with IRaq is that if we allow Saddam to continue down the path he is currently heading then he will have nuclear weapons very soon. So son, in fact, that had it not been for the war of 1991 he would ALREADY have it, according to Dr. Khidhir Hamza, the man who is most closely responsible for giving Saddam the weapon but finally came to his sense and managed to get himself and his family out of Iraq.

Keep in mind that often what is not said is just as important as what is said. Omission of fact is often done to prevent the dumb from gaining intelligence.

aaron_mag

03-14-2003, 01:57 PM

No one is arguing that N. Korea nuclear power is not dangerous. The argument is what is the intent of this nuclear power. I don't feel that they want to sell nuclear weapons to terrorists. There is no doubt that this is an issue that MUST be dealt with. I suppose the question is how. If I thought they were planning on producing nuclear weapons for sale to terrorists I would have no problem if the Bush administration wanted to do a preemptive strike against their reactor.

However I don't feel this is their intention. They want to use it as a bargaining tool to get aid and a non aggression pact.

1stdeadeye

03-14-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by aaron_mag
No one is arguing that N. Korea nuclear power is not dangerous. The argument is what is the intent of this nuclear power. I don't feel that they want to sell nuclear weapons to terrorists. There is no doubt that this is an issue that MUST be dealt with. I suppose the question is how. If I thought they were planning on producing nuclear weapons for sale to terrorists I would have no problem if the Bush administration wanted to do a preemptive strike against their reactor.

However I don't feel this is their intention. They want to use it as a bargaining tool to get aid and a non aggression pact.

What about all of the missle technology that they are helping to proliferate?:confused:

Hamster Huey

03-18-2003, 01:12 AM

While I agree with the idea of nuclear weapons being very strong bargaining tools, I think y'all are giving Kim Jong-Il waaaaay too much credit. The man is crazy, hands down. As was brought up before, the man would rather work on nuclear weapons than feed his people (North Korea is for all intents and purposes a third world country). Even if Kim said ok - we'll stop producing weapons components in exchange for economic aid, there's no reason to think that he would keep the bargain or refrain from selling the technology for more money. As was also astutely mentioned before, the guy has disregarded just about every agreement that's been made with him. A bargain's only useful if both parties adhere to it. If Kim were a seller on EBay, you wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole.

And whether or not Kim can reach the U.S. with an ICBM is immaterial. He's still got his choice of Seoul, Tokyo, or any number of huge population centers should he feel his grip slipping. This guy scares me 100 times more than Hussein.

1stdeadeye

03-20-2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Hamster Huey
The man is crazy, hands down. As was brought up before, the man would rather work on nuclear weapons than feed his people (North Korea is for all intents and purposes a third world country).

Crazy Man with nukes!

*shivers*

FreshmanBob

03-20-2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

My views? What I stated was MacAuthur's battleplans. Would it have worked. Yes, It think so. At that point in time, Russia was a fledgling nuclear power at best. Would their bombers have made it here. Doubtfull. Would ours have made it there. Doubtfull. We both had very decent fighter/intercepters that would have stopped most if not all of the bombers. You can't intercept a tactical nuke. MacArthur wanted that to offset the Chinese manpower advantage. Also, once MacArthur recovered from the Chinese invasion, we pushed them back to the current DMZ.

BTW a tactical nuclear weapon is a low yield nuke shot from a very big cannon. It is for use on the battlefield, not a bomb to be dropped. The mushroom cloud depends on the size of the nuke. No nuclear winter in Japan was there?:p Tactical nukes are still in the U.S. nuclear arsenal so I guess they are not that bad of an idea, eh?

Kina forgot about this thread for a while. Anyway, your views as in the fact that you talk about using nuclear weapons on people as if it were making lemonade. When you use nukes, its not just killing soldiers its killing millions of civilians, and world war 3 could have easily broken out, or it could not have. It just scares me that your so wishful that we invaded china, despite the millions of casulties that it could have equated to.

1stdeadeye

03-21-2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by FreshmanBob

Kina forgot about this thread for a while. Anyway, your views as in the fact that you talk about using nuclear weapons on people as if it were making lemonade. When you use nukes, its not just killing soldiers its killing millions of civilians, and world war 3 could have easily broken out, or it could not have. It just scares me that your so wishful that we invaded china, despite the millions of casulties that it could have equated to.

Uhm, as I stated those were MacArthur's battleplan. I am not for nukeing everybody!:rolleyes: :p

I was more or less argueing the technical merits of his plan. It may very well have worked, at that point in time. This was all before ICBMs and mutually assured destruction!

Tsunamip8ntphreak

03-21-2003, 02:35 PM

North Korea just wants some attention, they are a threat and we are going to put them out of commission once and for all, very soon.

My Dad was A marine for 20 years, and back in the early 1990's he was ordered to Korea to stop the North Koreans from Invading South Korea, It was a stand off and he made it through the 4 months he was over there (I was in Japan with my mother and 2 sisters at the time living with my Japanese Grandmother)

davidb

03-22-2003, 02:16 PM

Just want to talk briefly about the Patriot missle...

As of the first Gulf War, Patriots were incapable of taking out ICBM's. Intercontinental missiles travel at speeds that are just utterly rediculous, making them very difficult to hit as compared with, say, a Scud or a falling bomb.

I know for a fact, though, that Patriots have been much improved since Desert Storm. No, as stated earlier, they are not 100% accurate (nothing is - smart bombs are ~95%), but good enough is good enough.

I can't say at this point whether or not a current Patriot is capable of taking out an ICBM, but I can say this - Bringing the missles from the point they were at in Desert Storm to the point of being able to hit ICBM's is merely a matter of a software update. Yes, ICBM's travel faster than Scuds, Patriots, or damn near anything else, but all a deer has to do to get hit by a Ferrari is just get in the way. An ICBM is a big, delicate target. All you have to do is figure out how to hit it.

1stdeadeye

03-22-2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by davidb
Just want to talk briefly about the Patriot missle...

As of the first Gulf War, Patriots were incapable of taking out ICBM's. Intercontinental missiles travel at speeds that are just utterly rediculous, making them very difficult to hit as compared with, say, a Scud or a falling bomb.

I know for a fact, though, that Patriots have been much improved since Desert Storm. No, as stated earlier, they are not 100% accurate (nothing is - smart bombs are ~95%), but good enough is good enough.

I can't say at this point whether or not a current Patriot is capable of taking out an ICBM, but I can say this - Bringing the missles from the point they were at in Desert Storm to the point of being able to hit ICBM's is merely a matter of a software update. Yes, ICBM's travel faster than Scuds, Patriots, or damn near anything else, but all a deer has to do to get hit by a Ferrari is just get in the way. An ICBM is a big, delicate target. All you have to do is figure out how to hit it.

I wish it were that simple. President Bush is talking about a missle defense system because it is very difficult. You need to get an ICBM in the take off or orbiting stage. Re-entry is to late. Remember that ICBMs do not carry just 1 warhead, they have MIRVs (I think that is the right Anacronym). They carry up to 15 warheads that can be aimed at different targets. These come in at a very steep angle, almost straight down. Nukes also do not blow up at ground level, they are detonated a good distance above the ground so as to maximize their destruction. I am not sure about the altitude of the detonation, but the Patriots couldn't handle an ICBM!

Hope we get that missle defense system!

IcantBelieveit

03-23-2003, 10:52 AM

itell. reports say they only have one nuke, (as of now), And N. Korea is just stirring this all up b/c they want to be considered a major world power, and no one is taking them seriously for obvious reasons. Like it was stated their country is one of the worst as far as economy, and public health. They just want attention and federal aid. It would not be in our intrest to "attack" N. Korea. We have to many vital intrest in that region. I.E. Japan, south korea, China..the list goes on but those are the major ones. Take a look, Japans economy suffers when ours does, Japans economy does well when ours does. If there was an attack on Japan, our economy would goe to shambles. So i think this will most likely be settled with dimplomacy.

and if any nuclear device went off int he U.S. it would be a terrorist "dirty bomb". B/C most people can weight the consequences of launching nukes towards the U.S. And we can detect when a nuke has been launched, and from where, we jujst need to develop the technology to destroy it. I think the "star wars" system was a great idea, we jsut did not have the technology then to do it. soo hopefully something soon. Just to give us that assurance.

Trench

03-24-2003, 06:18 PM

A patriot missle wouldn't do the job of distorying a nuke would it?

IcantBelieveit

03-24-2003, 07:15 PM

no b/c nukes explode ABOVE the ground, several several hundred feet, maybe more, this spreads the descruction of the missle. Inter-continental Ballistic Missles (ICBM's)actually go into space, orbit until it reaches the correct position, and then desends, and releases the warhead and detonates it above the surface. More sophisticated ICBMS House several war heads and can strike different targets with each. Scary but i doubt we will ever see one used

davidb

03-24-2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

I wish it were that simple. President Bush is talking about a missle defense system because it is very difficult. You need to get an ICBM in the take off or orbiting stage. Re-entry is to late. Remember that ICBMs do not carry just 1 warhead, they have MIRVs (I think that is the right Anacronym). They carry up to 15 warheads that can be aimed at different targets. These come in at a very steep angle, almost straight down. Nukes also do not blow up at ground level, they are detonated a good distance above the ground so as to maximize their destruction. I am not sure about the altitude of the detonation, but the Patriots couldn't handle an ICBM!

Hope we get that missle defense system!

Thankfully, this is not entirely accurate. The very term "ballistic" missle implies that the missle is not being steered for most of its flight. So the only way it is coming almost straight down is if it is launched from the moon! :eek:

A Patriot doesn't need to destroy the bomb, it just needs to destroy the missle. The bomb will not simply explode when it falls to the ground, as everyone knows.