1 hour ago, tartempion said:

So the USA invades Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak without valid reason but can't act against a dangerous fool in North Korea?


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

In 10 years time you'll be saying - 

 

So the USA invades Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak North Korea without valid reason but can't act against a dangerous fool in ?????????

17 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

A typical trajectory for an icbm gets it to a height of up to 1000km. Gravity at that height is still around 75% of surface gravity. Drag on the other hand will be nearly zero. 

A rocket intended to launch a satellite has a much higher speed as it needs to reach a velocity where it goes so fast that even while it gets pulled back to earth due to gravity, the curvature of earth prevents it falling back onto earth. Should the rocket then be steered back down, its speed would create too much friction with the earth atmosphere, and thus it will burn up. 

Can satellites be shot down if they can be identified?

On 29/07/2017 at 3:08 PM, baboon said:

Their economy is actually doing quite well in relative terms, and their harvests have been recently pretty good. Hunger is not currently much of a problem though malnutrition is.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/world/asia/north-korea-drought-food-shortages-grain.html

 

I guess it depends which news feeds you are using ?

 

Google search for North Korean famine resulted in  8 search results (from different news outlets)  for 2017 alone ???????

8 minutes ago, flipflop99 said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/world/asia/north-korea-drought-food-shortages-grain.html

 

I guess it depends which news feeds you are using ?

 

Google search for North Korean famine resulted in  8 search results (from different news outlets)  for 2017 alone ???????

Yes, but did you notice the part about them suffering the worst drought in sixteen years? Also where I said harvests have been RECENTLY pretty good?

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

Yes, but did you notice the part about them suffering the worst drought in sixteen years? Also where I said harvests have been RECENTLY pretty good?

Hummmmmmm, I did but my interpretation was that you are quite sanguine about NK having an Ultimate Defence. I still think there is a risk (not a certainty )  this county may implode and NK having a Nuclear option to "go down fighting" is not a pleasant prospect for those living just across the 38th Parallel, the USA or Japan. Just saying........ 

13 minutes ago, flipflop99 said:

Hummmmmmm, I did but my interpretation was that you are quite sanguine about NK having an Ultimate Defence. I still think there is a risk (not a certainty )  this county may implode and NK having a Nuclear option to "go down fighting" is not a pleasant prospect for those living just across the 38th Parallel, the USA or Japan. Just saying........ 

Well it might, but then again that has been said since the calamitous famine of the 1990s. Yet here they still are.

 

The last thing I want to see is them going down fighting and countless lives of Koreans, expats and American soldiers lost. This is why I am against the use of violence on the peninsula. 

6 hours ago, baboon said:

Well it might, but then again that has been said since the calamitous famine of the 1990s. Yet here they still are.

 

The last thing I want to see is them going down fighting and countless lives of Koreans, expats and American soldiers lost. This is why I am against the use of violence on the peninsula. 

Easy to stop the cycle of insanity.  Abide by the UN resolutions, denuclearize the peninsula as most of the world wants, and stop threatening other countries. LOL

 

Simple.

What I always found strange was that we can legally justify bombing or sending cruise missiles into a country but it is against US law to try and assassinate the head of the country, who is the real source of the problem. Take out fat boy and find someone to negotiate with.

7 minutes ago, tonray said:

What I always found strange was that we can legally justify bombing or sending cruise missiles into a country but it is against US law to try and assassinate the head of the country, who is the real source of the problem. Take out fat boy and find someone to negotiate with.

They did have a go at Fidel Castro a couple of times, but I think everybody agrees it is not a good idea to pop head of states. With the right resources it is easy to serve a radioactive cup of tea or pinch you in the leg with a poisonous umbrella.

The NK generals can do their own dirty work.

7 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

They did have a go at Fidel Castro a couple of times, but I think everybody agrees it is not a good idea to pop head of states. With the right resources it is easy to serve a radioactive cup of tea or pinch you in the leg with a poisonous umbrella.

The NK generals can do their own dirty work.

What if he happens to be visiting the nuclear facility on your target list that day ?

On 7/29/2017 at 0:38 PM, baboon said:

We would already have the answer if they did. However the real headacases are few in number and are unlikely to get their hands on nuclear materials. 

Remember at the turn of the century when we were warned that there were such bombs aplenty in the markets of the former USSR? That turned out to be a load of cack as well. These things are enormously well guarded.

 

Not a "load of cack". More like a whole lot of efforts invested in curtailing such attempts. Most do not get much publicity, though. The latest one to make some headlines was ISIS getting their hands on radioactive material theoretically enabling the construction of a "dirty bomb". Didn't happen because they lacked the know-how and Mosul being retaken.

On 7/29/2017 at 1:08 PM, baboon said:

How well guarded would they be in the DPRK or Iran? Very, like everywhere else.

 

Nuclear proliferation is certainly undesirable, but what are you going to do when you have a big boy's club who have no intention of getting rid of theirs, lecturing others? 

 

Arguing for the sake of it? No, just engaging you in coversation on a topic I am interested in. If you think I am talking crap that's fine, but I still appreciate your views even if I do not happen to share them.

 

One could argue that when authoritarian regimes crumble, the chaos and power vacuum ensuing present a danger when it comes to possession of nuclear capabilities. The argument that these will be "well guarded" holds as long as the regime is firmly in place. Maybe.

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Easy to stop the cycle of insanity.  Abide by the UN resolutions, denuclearize the peninsula as most of the world wants, and stop threatening other countries. LOL

 

Simple.

I've got a simple plan too. Every country in the world should destroy its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. I'll leave to others to fill in the details of its easy implementation,.

On 7/29/2017 at 5:52 PM, Jdiddy said:

To my knowledge a nuclear armed country has never been invaded and taken over or "liberated" so it's obvious Kim just wants another ace in the hole MAD card

 

 

 

That's fair enough. Trouble is that with Kim's apparent survival paranoia, the threshold of what's considered a threat is unclear.

3 hours ago, tonray said:

What I always found strange was that we can legally justify bombing or sending cruise missiles into a country but it is against US law to try and assassinate the head of the country, who is the real source of the problem. Take out fat boy and find someone to negotiate with.

 

The "taking out" of authoritarian leaders, aka dictators is one thing. Accounting for the almost certain to follow mess is another. Doubt anyone is interested in things getting more chaotic with that much on the line.

40 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The "taking out" of authoritarian leaders, aka dictators is one thing. Accounting for the almost certain to follow mess is another. Doubt anyone is interested in things getting more chaotic with that much on the line.

I agree.. But I always give myself a few caffeine fueled arm chair general rants before noon. 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

One could argue that when authoritarian regimes crumble, the chaos and power vacuum ensuing present a danger when it comes to possession of nuclear capabilities. The argument that these will be "well guarded" holds as long as the regime is firmly in place. Maybe.

One could only hope the 'liberators' would take care of that, but then you look at Iraq and Afghanistan...

18 minutes ago, baboon said:

One could only hope the 'liberators' would take care of that, but then you look at Iraq and Afghanistan...

There aren't always "liberators" when these things happen. Regimes sometimes crumble from within.

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

There aren't always "liberators" when these things happen. Regimes sometimes crumble from within.

True, but I don't see the DPRK regime collapsing on its own...

Trump on North Korea: 'We handle everything'

 

"We will handle North Korea. We are gonna be able to handle them. It will be handled. We handle everything," Trump said Monday after a reporter asked him about his strategy."

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politics/trump-north-korea-handle/index.html

 

The inept one clarifies another of his "secret" plans...

19 minutes ago, baboon said:

True, but I don't see the DPRK regime collapsing on its own...

 

I beg to differ. If, as suggested by some, the solution involves the country opening up to outside trade and inevitable influence - that's a distinct possibility. And I think one which Kim is very weary of.