North Korea Moves Missile As World Watches

[F430murci]

There is no good reason to use nuclear weapons on NK. Conventional weapons will suffice just fine. If somebody has a cannon, you can still shoot him with a pistol, you do not need a cannon.

Ah but with a cannon you can send this kid to his room with a good spanking and still get to watch the 2nd half of the footy game in peace.

For sure I am using the cannon. I may miss with a pistol and give him time to shoot at me. Just bunker buster the hell out if where ever he is at and boy will be crying for his momma. I dint think he can imagine how bad it could be.

[wilgoster]

Amid all the Western swagger, this from another perspective:

New Era of Nuclear-Armed North Korea Forces U.S. to Reconsider War Games at Regime’s Door

Try to catch the part about China's troops massed at their border with NK. Anyone wonder why China has not told NK to back-off recently? Fast-backwards 63 years ago, if you have that gear in your shift-box. Take a snapshot, take movie. Then forward to the rhetoric of 2002-3. Grab some sound bytes. (Images of Iraq will self-attach.) Now paste them Next to today's picture and study the montage. You can bet they're doing something like that in Washington. Let's hope reason rules.

[baboon]

I think the scariest part about all this is how insignificant the media/world is portraying Kim Jong-un. People joke about him.

Scariest part is after our 10 minute missile destruction of key government areas, the world will now have to support the 50+ million people of North Korea. These people have been led to believe that they are the best and everybody else is evil. We will have to setup a new government for them, introduce them to modern things, and send them a lot of food and money. This will take many years. That is the scary part.

23 million.

[Sing_Sling]

Though not reasonable . . . try to take a look at the situation from the North Korean perspective:

No peace treaty with either South Korea nor the USA

South Korean and American troops and weapons literally feet from your border.

The largest and most powerful military might parading in their faces, conducting excercises at their own will

The USA leading the calls for sanctions against North Korea - very harsh sanctions that make the standard of living for ordinary citizens terrible

. . . and the list goes on and on.

Do they have a realistic gripe? Maybe. Does the population have a reason to support the regime? Absolutely, with all the propaganda and fear-mongering.

And N Korea are not the only ones in this situation . . . bombing the hell out of them? Sure, why worry about innocent civilians . . . again

[uptheos]

There is no good reason to use nuclear weapons on NK. Conventional weapons will suffice just fine. If somebody has a cannon, you can still shoot him with a pistol, you do not need a cannon.

Shoot him with a dart and watch him deflate!

[simple1]

@f430murci: Currently N. Korea has a relatively low both rate, ranked at 137th in the world. For N. Korea to eventually recover if will need a decent birth rate to re-build it's economy & infrastructure. Regards your increasingly strident comments concerning international obligations to rebuild a country at the end of hostilities, you may like to remind yourself of the lessons of the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan. A lot better way to go rather that generating an increasingly hostile population and possibly the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to starvation.

During Gulf war 1, the coalition destroyed a great deal of the Iraqi civil infrastructure (in my humble opinion completely unnecessary) e.g. 92 percent of installed capacity destroyed, refineries 80 percent of production capacity such as power stations. After Gulf War 1 the UN spent billions is assisting with the rebuilding program. Also the coalition did not destroy the Iraqi military capability as a result of Gulf war 1, it still had the largest armed forces in the region, albeit mostly conscripts. A very interesting analysis from 2001 that proved to be partially correct at: http://mail.a-ipi.net/IMG/pdf/csis-iraqmilcap.pdf

[F430murci]

@f430murci: Currently N. Korea has a relatively low both rate, ranked at 137th in the world. For N. Korea to eventually recover if will need a decent birth rate to re-build it's economy & infrastructure. Regards your increasingly strident comments concerning international obligations to rebuild a country at the end of hostilities, you may like to remind yourself of the lessons of the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan. A lot better way to go rather that generating an increasingly hostile population and possibly the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to starvation.

During Gulf war 1, the coalition destroyed a great deal of the Iraqi civil infrastructure (in my humble opinion completely unnecessary) e.g. 92 percent of installed capacity destroyed, refineries 80 percent of production capacity such as power stations. After Gulf War 1 the UN spent billions is assisting with the rebuilding program. Also the coalition did not destroy the Iraqi military capability as a result of Gulf war 1, it still had the largest armed forces in the region, albeit mostly conscripts. A very interesting analysis from 2001 that proved to be partially correct at: http://mail.a-ipi.net/IMG/pdf/csis-iraqmilcap.pdf

Your opinion and citing a post 9/11 article from 2001 when Bysh starts trying to build a case for war to save face isn't very persuasive. Yep, all those weapons of mass destruction we found was alarming. Iraq posed no serious threat to anyone, except perhaps to its own people, after first conflict. The second war was completely unnecessary and just another poor decision by a poor president.

Iraq is also a bit different. The cold hard fact is US and world needs stability in Iraq due to oil. The unfortunately truth is that creating inner stability in NK is perhaps not a large world priority once NK is no longer a threat.

Haha, yeah have more babies and get the US to pay for them. Brilliant idea. Something like one third of their children gave some form of dwarfism due to resources . . . Or perhaps whacked inbred gene pool if looking at midget leader.

Stop having kids you cannot pay for is logic of intelligent people not looking to be a leach on the butt of society.

Edited April 5, 2013 by F430murci

[keemapoot]

best post of the day on yahoo news:

We should have listened to Doug MacArthur.

The man who attempted to usurp the US Constitution?

The USA was lucky Harry Truman, a decent, honest man and a veteran of WWI was president. He put that posturing, blowhard phoney MacArthur in his place when he fired him over thes idiotic attempt to wage war on China. The world would have had its first nuclear war courtesy of that imbicile. MacArthur benefited from a PR machine and was a piss poor tactician and administrater. If you want real US military leadership read up on Bradley or Sproule or Eisenhower.

Sure, McArthur was and remains a divisive and controversial character with limited military historical success. The purpose of my post was to posit what would have happened to N. Korea had the U.S. pressed onward as he wanted. Similar queries have been made by historians of Gen. Patton's thirst for Russia in WWII, and George Bush Sr. failure to eliminate Saddam's regime in the first Gulf war.

It's interesting speculation. It's not meant to be an academic treatise on the US military's history in Korea, nor a validation or praise of McArthur's methods.

[simple1]

@f430murci: Currently N. Korea has a relatively low both rate, ranked at 137th in the world. For N. Korea to eventually recover if will need a decent birth rate to re-build it's economy & infrastructure. Regards your increasingly strident comments concerning international obligations to rebuild a country at the end of hostilities, you may like to remind yourself of the lessons of the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan. A lot better way to go rather that generating an increasingly hostile population and possibly the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to starvation.

During Gulf war 1, the coalition destroyed a great deal of the Iraqi civil infrastructure (in my humble opinion completely unnecessary) e.g. 92 percent of installed capacity destroyed, refineries 80 percent of production capacity such as power stations. After Gulf War 1 the UN spent billions is assisting with the rebuilding program. Also the coalition did not destroy the Iraqi military capability as a result of Gulf war 1, it still had the largest armed forces in the region, albeit mostly conscripts. A very interesting analysis from 2001 that proved to be partially correct at: http://mail.a-ipi.net/IMG/pdf/csis-iraqmilcap.pdf

Your opinion and citing a post 9/11 article from 2001 when Bysh starts trying to build a case for war to save face isn't very persuasive. Yep, all those weapons of mass destruction we found was alarming. Iraq posed no serious threat to anyone, except perhaps to its own people, after first conflict. The second war was completely unnecessary and just another poor decision by a poor president.

Iraq is also a bit different. The cold hard fact is US and world needs stability in Iraq due to oil. The unfortunately truth is that creating inner stability in NK is perhaps not a large world priority once NK is no longer a threat.

Haha, yeah have more babies and get the US to pay for them. Brilliant idea. Something like one third of their children gave some form of dwarfism due to resources . . . Or perhaps whacked inbred gene pool if looking at midget leader.

Stop having kids you cannot pay for is logic of intelligent people not looking to be a leach on the butt of society.

Do I understand you believe N. Koreans are having children in the hope the US/UN will provide for them? You have to be flaming again. However, an interesting side note from a western businessman who set up a pharmaceutical company in N.Korea "it urges families to have more children, and discourages abortions and even contraceptives even though they are legal"

http://a-capitalist-in-north-korea.com/news/20121217102942-excerpt.html

Edited April 5, 2013 by simple1

[Sing_Sling]

I must admit to being a bit baffled by F430murci's post as well

[Sing_Sling]

Oh dear . . . Kim Jong Un may as well give up now, he has had his last hurrah!

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-backs-south-korea-in-phone-hookup-20130405-2hbrm.html

Julia Gillard, aka the Welsh Witch has said she will pressure Kim into submission . . .

May God save the Queen for no-one will save the Korean Dictator*

*(slightly altered version vis-a-vis Oz political history)

Edited April 5, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[Lite Beer]

Report: North Korea has two mid-range missiles on east coast

Seoul - North Korea has two intermediate-range missiles on mobile launchers deployed near the east coast, Yonhap News Agency quoted unnamed military sources as saying in Seoul Friday.

The news came after reports Thursday indicated that a mid-range missile, able to reach South Korea, Japan and the US military base of Guam, had been moved to the east coast.

-- The Nation 2013-04-05

[fire and ice]

I know this sounds crazy. But, I think if NK starts something, China will jump in to help stop them.

I think you are correct. A tacit agreement will be made with China that the South an USa do not approach any buffer zone the Chinese set for its border. China would invade and secure a large swath of North Korean territory. It would most likely annex a large part of North Korea.

I think China would "help" also - but if I was a South Korean Id be far far happier if North Korea was annexed and run by China than retaining the lunatics currently in charge!! Obviously not as good as the South taking charge but about 90% as good when compared to have horrible things are at present. At least Chinese rule would give people sane and reasonable lives.

[Steely Dan]

Report: North Korea has two mid-range missiles on east coast

Seoul - North Korea has two intermediate-range missiles on mobile launchers deployed near the east coast, Yonhap News Agency quoted unnamed military sources as saying in Seoul Friday.

The news came after reports Thursday indicated that a mid-range missile, able to reach South Korea, Japan and the US military base of Guam, had been moved to the east coast.

-- The Nation 2013-04-05

Nodong Nodong.

[Sing_Sling]

How many missiles are stationed along the border facing North Korea?

All we hear is this NK missile here and this NK missile there . . . why don't they report the hundreds of missiles pointed at NK?

Honestly, this is getting ridiculous - the wonderful free press

Googling this: 'US missiles aimed at North Korea' comes back with this:

https://www.google.com.my/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=US%20missiles%20aimed%20at%20north%20korea&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=c2264356cc05774&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.bmk&biw=1241&bih=606

Every single link is about one of the two NK missiles moving somewhere . . . nothing else

[rijb]

How many missiles are stationed along the border facing North Korea?

All we hear is this NK missile here and this NK missile there . . . why don't they report the hundreds of missiles pointed at NK?

Honestly, this is getting ridiculous - the wonderful free press

Googling this: 'US missiles aimed at North Korea' comes back with this:

https://www.google.com.my/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=US%20missiles%20aimed%20at%20north%20korea&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=c2264356cc05774&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.bmk&biw=1241&bih=606

Every single link is about one of the two NK missiles moving somewhere . . . nothing else

You might have better luck goggling 'sh_t storm'. You can bet that every strategic target has been dialed in by SK and US weapons, on the ground and in the air. I wish it wasn't so.

Edited April 5, 2013 by rijb

[Credo]

I think it would be up to NK's propaganda machine to report on the number of missiles pointed at it.

[Preman]

I know this sounds crazy. But, I think if NK starts something, China will jump in to help stop them.

I think you are correct. A tacit agreement will be made with China that the South an USa do not approach any buffer zone the Chinese set for its border. China would invade and secure a large swath of North Korean territory. It would most likely annex a large part of North Korea.

They are already preparing!

[F430murci]

@f430murci: Currently N. Korea has a relatively low both rate, ranked at 137th in the world. For N. Korea to eventually recover if will need a decent birth rate to re-build it's economy & infrastructure. Regards your increasingly strident comments concerning international obligations to rebuild a country at the end of hostilities, you may like to remind yourself of the lessons of the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan. A lot better way to go rather that generating an increasingly hostile population and possibly the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to starvation.

During Gulf war 1, the coalition destroyed a great deal of the Iraqi civil infrastructure (in my humble opinion completely unnecessary) e.g. 92 percent of installed capacity destroyed, refineries 80 percent of production capacity such as power stations. After Gulf War 1 the UN spent billions is assisting with the rebuilding program. Also the coalition did not destroy the Iraqi military capability as a result of Gulf war 1, it still had the largest armed forces in the region, albeit mostly conscripts. A very interesting analysis from 2001 that proved to be partially correct at: http://mail.a-ipi.net/IMG/pdf/csis-iraqmilcap.pdf

Your opinion and citing a post 9/11 article from 2001 when Bysh starts trying to build a case for war to save face isn't very persuasive. Yep, all those weapons of mass destruction we found was alarming. Iraq posed no serious threat to anyone, except perhaps to its own people, after first conflict. The second war was completely unnecessary and just another poor decision by a poor president.

Iraq is also a bit different. The cold hard fact is US and world needs stability in Iraq due to oil. The unfortunately truth is that creating inner stability in NK is perhaps not a large world priority once NK is no longer a threat.

Haha, yeah have more babies and get the US to pay for them. Brilliant idea. Something like one third of their children gave some form of dwarfism due to resources . . . Or perhaps whacked inbred gene pool if looking at midget leader.

Stop having kids you cannot pay for is logic of intelligent people not looking to be a leach on the butt of society.

Do I understand you believe N. Koreans are having children in the hope the US/UN will provide for them? You have to be flaming again. However, an interesting side note from a western businessman who set up a pharmaceutical company in N.Korea "it urges families to have more children, and discourages abortions and even contraceptives even though they are legal"

http://a-capitalist-in-north-korea.com/news/20121217102942-excerpt.html

Haha, great source. A pharmaceutical guy trying to get a permit to seek his viagra and cillias in North Korea arguing Koreans need to have more sex and have more kids.

He has lots of pearls of wisom and entertainment on his blog including:

"My company also looked into selling Viagra and Cialis, products also popular with Korean men. The government wouldn’t mind, I thought, as these aphrodisiacs would get couples heated up and create more kids. I was quickly proven wrong when denied the permit. Ms. Thak, a pharmacist, revealed the reasons to me: “The result of the higher sexual appetite of men would not have led to more children but to more abortions,” she claimed."

So is it any wonder he syas this in same blog where he is talking about trying to get a permit to sell Viagra and Cillias:

"Unlike most so-called developing countries, North Korea is home to an aging population, because women are having on average 2.02 babies—barely enough to sustain the population numbers, according to a 2010 report by Statistics Korea. The demographic is in part because most young couples bear one child. The government, in response, has taken a pragmatic response to population growth rather than a Leninist one: it urges families to have more children, and discourages abortions and even contraceptives even though they are legal."

[Phronesis]

If North Korea had oil, an American tank would already be in Pyongyang pulling down a statue of Kim Jong-un.

[SteeleJoe]

.I cannot see Obama having the nerve to retaliate with nukes and there really is no need.

Classic. Can't help yourself, can you?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[F430murci]

If North Korea had oil, an American tank would already be in Pyongyang pulling down a statue of Kim Jong-un.

Perhaps, but Libya has oil. Not many US tanks rolling around Tripoli pulling over statutes. Although I have no real idea of what will happen and what US policy is at this time, Obama is a smart guy and hopefully learned from Bush's brilliant decision in Iraq et al. Hopefully, things will be handled differently in NK if force becomes a necessity. I also think we should raid the coffers if countries forcing us to use force like NK. Caveat, I do not believe Iraq forced us to use force in 2002/3 blunder. Kuwait conflict yes, second no.

[SteeleJoe]

best post of the day on yahoo news:

We should have listened to Doug MacArthur.

The man who attempted to usurp the US Constitution?

The USA was lucky Harry Truman, a decent, honest man and a veteran of WWI was president. He put that posturing, blowhard phoney MacArthur in his place when he fired him over thes idiotic attempt to wage war on China. The world would have had its first nuclear war courtesy of that imbicile. MacArthur benefited from a PR machine and was a piss poor tactician and administrater. If you want real US military leadership read up on Bradley or Sproule or Eisenhower.

I think the story of MacArthur is a lot less black and white; I dislike him more than I like him but he was very good at some things - apparently you don't think as well as I do of his role in strategy in the Pacific Theater and as the the de facto ruler of Japan.

But I have nothing but contempt for many of the things he did and said, in particular among them are the way he allowed the US forces in Korea to be so weak, unskilled, unprepared and un-supplied prior to the invasion; his dismissal of any danger from China (and the way his retinue of sycophants shirked their duty to satisfy his ego); his willingness to start WWIII; and his disregard for what should be the sacrosanct principle of civilian rule over the military.

Truman was one of the best we've ever had or will have.

Bradley, outstanding. My feelings about Eisenhower are mixed but I feel he's overrated as a military leader and a POTUS (though he was an extraordinary administrator in WWII and the war could arguably have gone quite different had we not had him on hand at that time). George Marshall - there's a man who deserves the fame and credit that so often is accorded to MacArthur. And as for Korea - thank the gods for Gen. Matthew Ridgeway. A fine officer in WWII and the hero of Korea.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[F430murci]

.I cannot see Obama having the nerve to retaliate with nukes and there really is no need.

Classic. Can't help yourself, can you?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Obama is a smart, strong and calculated man . . . unlike Bush Jr. Silence is stength on these types of issues. Look at NK's conduct and Oabam's conduct up until now. Junior would be on TV stumbling over his words making his axis of evil speeches, putting our country on high alert and placing airports at level orange. Midget leader would surely like to see disruption and alarm. That is the entire purpose for his lunacy.

[SteeleJoe]

If North Korea had oil, an American tank would already be in Pyongyang pulling down a statue of Kim Jong-un.

That one again. So original.

The implication when people say that (as they do so often, about so many places) is that to treat situation differently because of oil is somehow wrong or has to be entirely about making money...

Assuming what you say is true - do you live in a country which is not dependent on petroleum? A place which has an economy that is or would be immune from any fluctuations in the flow of oil or a cessation of it? Do you honestly not think that it matters who has control over oil and who doesn't?

I hate it. I dream of the day (not in my lifetime) when we aren't forced to make foreign policy with oil in mind and places like KSA or Iran don't have to be coddled or fought. But right now it's as if we live in a town with a finite amount of drinking water the source of which is in someone else's territory and people complain when have concerns about what the people in that territory are doing with the flow of water. And we are willing to fight to prevent them from being able to build a dam.

Claiming it's all about money flies in the face of certain facts. Look at history and look at what happens or didn't happen in places with oil.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[F430murci]

How many missiles are stationed along the border facing North Korea?

All we hear is this NK missile here and this NK missile there . . . why don't they report the hundreds of missiles pointed at NK?

Honestly, this is getting ridiculous - the wonderful free press

Googling this: 'US missiles aimed at North Korea' comes back with this:

https://www.google.com.my/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=US%20missiles%20aimed%20at%20north%20korea&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=c2264356cc05774&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.bmk&biw=1241&bih=606

Every single link is about one of the two NK missiles moving somewhere . . . nothing else

Why . . . because bad <deleted> don't need to announce to the world how bad arse they are.

NK has to know they will be decimated. They apparently just do not believe US or anyone will do anything and they can get sanctions lifted this way if they act bad enough. Problem is, their tactic is backfiring, but they are committed and cannot back down. I am sure the US millitray is scratching their heads, but very greatful for the targets if such becomes a necessity.

[SteeleJoe]

.I cannot see Obama having the nerve to retaliate with nukes and there really is no need.

Classic. Can't help yourself, can you?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Obama is a smart, strong and calculated man . . . unlike Bush Jr. Silence is stength on these types of issues. Look at NK's conduct and Oabam's conduct up until now. Junior would be on TV stumbling over his words making his axis of evil speeches, putting our country on high alert and placing airports at level orange. Midget leader would surely like to see disruption and alarm. That is the entire purpose for his lunacy.

Not sure why you are quoting me and responding as you have. I'm mostly an Obama supporter and have never had any regard for Bush even from when he was still a governor.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[F430murci]

.I cannot see Obama having the nerve to retaliate with nukes and there really is no need.

Classic. Can't help yourself, can you?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Obama is a smart, strong and calculated man . . . unlike Bush Jr. Silence is stength on these types of issues. Look at NK's conduct and Oabam's conduct up until now. Junior would be on TV stumbling over his words making his axis of evil speeches, putting our country on high alert and placing airports at level orange. Midget leader would surely like to see disruption and alarm. That is the entire purpose for his lunacy.

Not sure why you are quoting me and responding as you have. I'm mostly an Obama supporter and have never had any regard for Bush even from when he was still a governor.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Not disagreeing with you. I was agreeing with your response to the other post and just did not bother to try and dig the original up . . . Sorry for any confussion.

[SteeleJoe]

.I cannot see Obama having the nerve to retaliate with nukes and there really is no need.

Classic. Can't help yourself, can you?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Obama is a smart, strong and calculated man . . . unlike Bush Jr. Silence is stength on these types of issues. Look at NK's conduct and Oabam's conduct up until now. Junior would be on TV stumbling over his words making his axis of evil speeches, putting our country on high alert and placing airports at level orange. Midget leader would surely like to see disruption and alarm. That is the entire purpose for his lunacy.

Not sure why you are quoting me and responding as you have. I'm mostly an Obama supporter and have never had any regard for Bush even from when he was still a governor.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Not disagreeing with you. I was agreeing with your response to the other post and just did not bother to try and dig the original up . . . Sorry for any confussion.

Gotya. No worries.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Publicus]

The latest analysis of Kim's course of action is that he'll make a low impact "tactical" strike somewhere in the area of the Korean peninsula. The link is below. One pentagon general said Kim has to do "something" in the next 7 to 10 days because "He's declared war several times now and once you've done that, you have to do something or no one will ever believe you again."

North Korea Likely To Launch 'A Relatively Small Attack That Won't Leave Many People Dead'

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/expect-a-tactical-strike-from-north-korea-2013-4#ixzz2PcNuiueP