North Korea threatens to commit suicide

[The Overlord]

We all know this has been going on for a long, long time. There were bouts of saber rattling during the Clinton administration, and I’ve lost track of how far back they’ve been playing their brinkmanship, but I’m sure it encompasses the whole of the period since the Korean War armistice.


I’ve read the various commentaries by geopolitical analysts over the angles and limitations that North Korea can take, including the path to renewed war if it feels it’s painted into a corner. Of course, as far as dictators go, Kim Jong-il is about two nuts short of a complete fruitcake, the last two he’s going to need to prove he’d play his final hand here. Thing is, it's a corner of his own making.

They keep saying that sanctions aren’t enough to truly hurt this country, but given the extremely provocative actions they’ve taken, including firing a missile over Japan, testing a nuke, and now firing more missiles and directly threatening war, I have to say something has yanked this guy’s chain but good.

I’m beginning to wonder how close we are now. He’s a crazy guy with a big gun, but he’s standing in a cage full of irate lions. Sooner or later one of them is going to hit first.


Based on all I’ve read, renewed war on the Korean peninsula is going to make Iraq look like a backyard brawl. If North Korea attacks, have no doubt that the US will strike, and we’ll strike with a ferocity that will make the entire world stand back and think twice about ever fucking with us again. If our military doesn’t hand the DPRK tens of thousand of corpses on the first day of the war, they won’t be doing their job; that’s how you have to handle a million+ army, you have to shock it into submission and bleed it white.

I just have to say I’ve been following this, and wonder if we’re finally going to see it go down.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090527/ts_nm/us_korea_north

orth Korea threatens attack if ships checked


SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea, facing international sanction for this week's nuclear test, threatened on Wednesday to attack the South after Seoul joined a U.S.-led initiative to check vessels suspected of carrying equipment for weapons of mass destruction.

The threat came after South Korean media reported Pyongyang had restarted a plant that makes weapons-grade plutonium.

President Barack Obama is working to form a united response to Monday's nuclear test, widely denounced as a major threat to stability that violates U.N. resolutions and brings the reclusive North closer to having a reliable nuclear bomb.

A North Korean army spokesman reiterated that the country was no longer bound by the armistice signed at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War because Washington had ignored its responsibility as a signatory by drawing Seoul into the anti-proliferation effort.

"Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels including search and seizure will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty and we will immediately respond with a powerful military strike," the spokesman for the North's army was quoted as saying by the official KCNA news agency.

South Korea announced on Tuesday it was joining the naval exercise, called the Proliferation Security Initiative.

An angry Pyongyang, which relies on arms sales for cash, had said it considered such a move an act of war.

The nuclear test has raised concern about Pyongyang spreading weapons to other countries or groups. Washington has accused it of trying try to sell nuclear know-how to Syria and others.

The rival Koreas have fought two deadly naval clashes in 1999 and 2002 near a disputed maritime border off their west coast and the North has threatened in the past year to strike South Korean vessels in those Yellow Sea waters.

Pyongyang also test-fired a third short-range missile late on Tuesday after it added to tensions with the launch of two others earlier in the day, the South's Yonhap news agency quoted a unnamed government source as saying.

The secretive state appears to have made good on a threat issued in April of restarting a facility at its Yongbyon nuclear plant that extracts plutonium, South Korea's largest newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, reported.

"There are various indications that reprocessing facilities in Yongbyon resumed operation (and) have been detected by U.S. surveillance satellite, and these including steam coming out of the facility," it quoted an unnamed government source as saying.

The Soviet-era Yongbyon plant was being taken apart under a six-country disarmament-for-aid deal and there were no signs yet that the North, which conducted its only prior nuclear test in October 2006, was again separating plutonium.

Seoul's financial markets, which had fallen in the wake of the nuclear test, rose on Wednesday though traders said investors were still nervous about when the North would try to be more provocative and ratchet up tension in the region.

KIM'S HEALTH, SUCCESSION IN FOCUS

Analysts say Pyongyang's military grandstanding is partly aimed at tightening leader Kim Jong-il's grip on power so he can better engineer his succession and divert attention from the country's weak economy, which has fallen into near ruin since he took over in 1994.

Many speculate Kim's suspected stroke in August raised concerns about succession and he wants his third son to be the next leader of Asia's only communist dynasty.

The country, which has a history of using military threats to squeeze concessions out of global powers, may have ramped up its provocations early in Obama's presidency in order to have more cards to play during his time in office.

There may be little the international community can do to deter the North, which has been punished for years by sanctions and is so poor it relies on aid to feed its 23 million people.

A Treasury Department official said it was weighing possible action to isolate the North financially.

A 2005 U.S. clampdown on a Macau bank suspected of laundering money for Pyongyang effectively cut the country off from the international banking system.

Japan's upper house of parliament denounced the test and said in a resolution the government should step up its sanctions.

North Koreans celebrated, with a rally in the capital of top cadres, KCNA said.

"The nuclear test was a grand undertaking to protect the supreme interests of the DPRK (North Korea) and defend the dignity and sovereignty of the country and nation," it quoted a communist party official as saying.

North Korea's meager supply of fissile material is likely down to enough for five to seven bombs after Monday's test, experts have said. It could probably extract enough plutonium from spent rods at the plant for another bomb's worth of plutonium by the end of this year.

The North's next step may to be resume operations at all of Yongbyon, with experts saying it could take the North up to a year to reverse disablement steps. Once running, it can produce enough plutonium for a bomb a year.

The hermit state has also threatened to launch a long-range ballistic missile if the Security Council does not apologize for tightening sanctions to punish it for an April launch widely seen as a missile test that violated U.N. measures.

[HairyHeretic]

There are a couple of things they could be doing here. One is to up their status, in the hope of a stronger bargaining position at whatever round of talks come next.

If they continue with the war rhetoric, that's dangerous, because public statements have to be acted on if they want to keep face. They may be hoping that China would support them should it come to anything military. I'm not sure what the relations are like bewteen China and North Korea, but that seems to be the best place to apply some backroom pressure.

[Lithos]

China has not had too warm relations to other communist countries for a good while, since China chose to embrace capitalism as heavily modified part of the system rather than to stick with keeping it completely out. I do not really see china and north korea being in terribly good relations.

The way north korea is acting makes absolutely no sense, they should be making allies instead of new enemies. And you need strong economy to be able to withstand any sort of war, it is like they are deliberately choking themselves to nothing. And in the end it is the ordinary people there who pay the price for it I think, with all the sanctions to trade, the quality of living there is bound to be pretty crappy.

The ugly thing is that they do have a weapon that can cause great losses now. It is still suicidal though, China, Russia, USA among many others have more than enough arsenal to bomb them right back to stone age, and if someone is stupid enough to strike anywhere with nuclear weapons, I am pretty sure that none of the big players will just stand aside watching. Ballistic missile is not something you wave at people when having a temper tarantum and what north korea is doing seems to be just that.

[Trieste]

I am so sick of hearing about WMDs.

We'd better find them this time, is all I really can say to that.  >:(

[Vekseid]

"Pretty crappy"? The people in North Korea live thirty years behind the westernized world, gather plastic bags to recycle, and consider selling their daughter to a Chinese farmer to be giving her a leg up on life.

I am so sick of hearing about WMDs.

We'd better find them this time, is all I really can say to that.  >:(

Well, he's detonated two, even if they were duds by American standards. That's a few steps above what Saddam had.

The United States would not be driving an invasion of North Korea, however. It would almost certainly be predominantly South Korean or Chinese, with backing from the US and Japan.

[GS3XXAristo]

I'd be extremely worried if North Korea went down the warpath, personally, for several reasons:

1. Manpower. Everyone in that country (not counting their armed forces and Special Commando's, a number which they have the highest amount in the world) would sacrifice themselves for a fight. Yeah, they'd probably have alot of deserters and low morale, but if you're about to die, you'd probably feel like taking everyone out with you.

2. The DMZ. While S. Korea has all the advanced weaponry, skill, and U.S. forces backing, they still only number about 660,000. On the N. Korean side, however, the number exceeds a million. It's common belief (here in the army at least), that the DMZ extending down to Seoul would be captured quickly (including our 2nd Infantry Division at Camp Red Cloud, who'd probably make it out in time, but lose the camp anyway).

3. The Goal itself. Both the North and South have forces working behind each other's lines, waiting for the moment to sabotage, etc. Eventually, the South and U.S. would win, but the damage caused, including to Japan (N. Korea's intent on some of its nukes is to attack the Japanese bases, including Kadena, which has America's largest Air Force contingent) would be devastating.

4. Chemical Weapons.

People, you don't even wanna know how many chemical weapons they have and how they'd deliver them. I'll put it this way though: we will have casualties should they use them. We Air Defense won't be able to get all of them, sadly enough.

[Vekseid]

I think the claim that North Korea would get anywhere is insulting to South Korea.

1. North Korea's manpower is a paper tiger, and claiming that they would fight against their southern brothers offering them food is just silly. North Korea is pretty much fully and entirely militarized - the five million they have is the best their numbers are ever going to look like. Once the war gets on, the Russians in the Winter War will look like strategic geniuses in comparison.

Or put another way, Iraq was in better military and internal political shape than North Korea is now. You cannot counter a Western military (such as South Korea's) with pure numbers.  Even China publicly acknowledges that a direct military confrontation with the US is 'like throwing an egg against a rock'. You need to win the political war and the political war is not on North Korea's side, at all.

2. A shock attack might hit Seoul, but it won't be able to take it. I mean, seriously, who do you think has better endurance?


The South Korean army has a military reserve of over three million. I somehow do not think they will all vanish in an assault.

3. South Korea needs a functioning missile before it becomes a threat to Japan.

That leaves chemical weapons, really, and the question of how many officers would obey such an order.

[Zakharra]

 Unless China puts on pressure, it's unlikely N. Korea will ever back down. China has the biggest strings in regard to  yanking N. Korea's  actions since they supply most of the food, energy, materials and  basics for  keeping N. Korea at the level they are now. If China stopped shipments, N. Korera would collapse in only a few months.

Jim jon Ill is the one that keeps pushing things. He's an idiot and bully that, unfortunately, has access to fairly powerful weapons. I do not think he is mentally stable either.

[RubySlippers]

I have a simple idea - let nations like that have any weapons they like. If they decide to fire these at the United States be clear our response be devestating and will use our nuclear weapons, even tactical nukes can be devestating and precise.

But if they want a few fine, why is that our business they seem to be paranoid let them sit behind their borders then and be paranoid.

[Lithos]

That is how things work allready, the world peace is mostly maintained by that balance. It is the emergence of someone who does not really care about repercussions and nukes million city or two that is the problem. Even in modern politics human lives have some value and if whacked enough person gets big guns, it causes some worry.

In this case, the south Korean leader seems to be mentally unstable enough that he might well nuke some large city, if he gets the full means for it. He has the nukes, but I do not think that they have well enough working vessel to deliver the payload, at least I hope that they do not.

Even if you do not care about human lives at all, think about what impact to world economy tokyo or new york getting blown off the map would have at the current depression. The effect would be serious and world wide even if the attacker was wiped out in hours after the first strike.

[HairyHeretic]

I have a simple idea - let nations like that have any weapons they like. If they decide to fire these at the United States be clear our response be devestating and will use our nuclear weapons, even tactical nukes can be devestating and precise.

But if they want a few fine, why is that our business they seem to be paranoid let them sit behind their borders then and be paranoid.

What makes you think they'd use a missile?

If I wanted to nuke a country I'd load a nuke onto a container truck and send it by ship ... ship it through a couple of countries to blur the trail, and have it just one cargo container amongst hundreds on some big freighter. Let it sail into my enemies port city then watch the pretty fireworks from a distance.

That's what you have to be wary off. Not the missiles. The battlefield deployable nuclear artillery and one person who doesn't care if they live or die. Not a huge blast radius, but set it off downtown in any major city, and it doesn't have to have.

[GS3XXAristo]

1. North Korea's manpower is a paper tiger, and claiming that they would fight against their southern brothers offering them food is just silly. North Korea is pretty much fully and entirely militarized - the five million they have is the best their numbers are ever going to look like. Once the war gets on, the Russians in the Winter War will look like strategic geniuses in comparison.

According to the U.S. Department of State, North Korea has the fourth-largest army in the world, at an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, with about 20% of men aged 17–54 in the regular armed forces. North Korea has the highest percentage of military personnel per capita of any nation in the world, with approximately 1 enlisted soldier for every 25 citizens.

It's not a question of who would win (UN, obviously) EVENTUALLY, but the damage done in the beginning would be no less of a concern. And that quote above doesn't count the 24 other citizens who can fire a weapon just as effectively, women and children included.

Or put another way, Iraq was in better military and internal political shape than North Korea is now. You cannot counter a Western military (such as South Korea's) with pure numbers.  Even China publicly acknowledges that a direct military confrontation with the US is 'like throwing an egg against a rock'. You need to win the political war and the political war is not on North Korea's side, at all.

Insurgents do it all the time. You see, politically, the US in particular would end up looking bad regardless of the outcome. Hell, N. Korea could detonate all 7 of its nukes on its own soil and put the blame on us. Eventually everyone would understand we DIDN'T, but if I learned anything about the world's population attitude toward the US, its that the Mob Mentality takes prescidence above all else, sad as that sounds.

A shock attack might hit Seoul, but it won't be able to take it. I mean, seriously, who do you think has better endurance?

Judging from historical evidence (Korean War), I'd say N. Korea would get it first. Yeah, we'd take it back eventually, but like I said in my first post, it's pretty much guaranteed that everything near the DMZ will have to be retaken. And that's from a military perspective. I'd like to quote one veteran I know that's served there twice, but only if need be.

The South Korean army has a military reserve of over three million. I somehow do not think they will all vanish in an assault.

Obviously not. But let's not forget who those soldiers are...or, and I hope you catch my drift, who S. Korean forces might "think" they are. (Sabotage/Spy reference). Still, the majority of them are probably loyal enough, and no, they wont all vanish in an assault, but a vast reduction in number of those on the DMZ is a given.

South Korea needs a functioning missile before it becomes a threat to Japan.

Please don't be fooled by all those failed launchings of their Nodong and Taepodong-2 ballistic missiles. We've run scenarios against them. Not all of them are duds. I'd like to elaborate but for security purposes I can't. Of course, that's kinda weasel-ing out of it XP. Sorry. If I can think of a safe way to explain the point, I'll let you know. Or you can google it. Im sure its there somewhere.

That leaves chemical weapons, really, and the question of how many officers would obey such an order.

Who knows such a thing? Heck, who even knows if they get Officers to actually make that call. I dunno if they have Command Sergeant Majors or the like, but his desire would hold high up there with, lets say, a Battle Captain (again, if they have those), not to mention they probably have enlisted members at the actual launch console (if so. I know we do).

[Vekseid]

What makes you think they'd use a missile?

If I wanted to nuke a country I'd load a nuke onto a container truck and send it by ship ... ship it through a couple of countries to blur the trail, and have it just one cargo container amongst hundreds on some big freighter. Let it sail into my enemies port city then watch the pretty fireworks from a distance.

Considering the half life of an initiator is measured in months, good luck with that.

According to the U.S. Department of State, North Korea has the fourth-largest army in the world, at an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, with about 20% of men aged 17–54 in the regular armed forces. North Korea has the highest percentage of military personnel per capita of any nation in the world, with approximately 1 enlisted soldier for every 25 citizens.

And it's breaking them. And for what? Look at what a three to one numerical advantage did for Saddam in the first Gulf War. American troops were ordered to pull back in order to avoid it becoming a massacre.

North Korea does not even have a 2:1 numerical advantage over the forces stationed in the South. North Korea would be lucky to give a quarter million troops sufficient mobility to mount a serious invasion. Starvation amongst your people is not a sign of high-quality logistical capability.

It's not a question of who would win (UN, obviously) EVENTUALLY, but the damage done in the beginning would be no less of a concern. And that quote above doesn't count the 24 other citizens who can fire a weapon just as effectively, women and children included.

...does North Korea even have thirty million rounds of usable ammunition? /snark

But the worst of it is, you are insulting South Koreans. You make the claim that every last man, woman and child in North Korea can fight - never mind that no civilization in the history of mankind ever managed to mobilize more than a third of its population, and that -no- South Korean will.

Insurgents do it all the time.

Show me a mass formation of insurgents marching in lock-step and I will show you a lot of dead insurgents. North Korea, to my knowledge, is the only nation on the planet that would seriously consider engaging US-derived tactics in such a manner at this point. The first Gulf War pretty much sealed the fate of formation tactics for the rest of the world.

You see, politically, the US in particular would end up looking bad regardless of the outcome. Hell, N. Korea could detonate all 7 of its nukes on its own soil and put the blame on us. Eventually everyone would understand we DIDN'T, but if I learned anything about the world's population attitude toward the US, its that the Mob Mentality takes prescidence above all else, sad as that sounds.

Why?

Not one single American soldier needs to be present in South Korea for South Korea to crush the North. As I understand it, the only reason we are there is to assist the South Koreans in getting mobilized should they need to.

This is, of course, above and beyond the fact that we are acting on the part of the defense in such a situation. American support for such wars is traditionally in the 80% range. Good luck on the PR war to overcome that spread. Where was this mob mentality during WWII or the first Gulf war that you speak of? Even Afghanistan or the Korean war enjoyed a far greater amount of support.

Judging from historical evidence (Korean War), I'd say N. Korea would get it first.

That's like saying Britain could take over New England because they beat us up a lot in the war of 1812. South Korea is a bit more mobilized than that now.

1.2 million, largely unmechanized (or the effective equivalent), starving troops, is going to take a foreign city of 35 million people defended by three million reservists and three-quarters of a million activated soldiers, under complete air superiority?

Kim can't take Seoul. He knows it. That's why he has a bunch of guns pointing at it instead.

Yeah, we'd take it back eventually, but like I said in my first post, it's pretty much guaranteed that everything near the DMZ will have to be retaken. And that's from a military perspective. I'd like to quote one veteran I know that's served there twice, but only if need be.

There are people on these forums that were stationed in South Korea.

Obviously not. But let's not forget who those soldiers are...or, and I hope you catch my drift, who S. Korean forces might "think" they are. (Sabotage/Spy reference). Still, the majority of them are probably loyal enough, and no, they wont all vanish in an assault, but a vast reduction in number of those on the DMZ is a given.

I'm sorry, but we only have one other frame of reference here - the Gulf Wars.

People sometimes refuse to call them wars.

Only this time, we don't need ten thousand miles worth of logistics backing the defenders up.

Please don't be fooled by all those failed launchings of their Nodong and Taepodong-2 ballistic missiles. We've run scenarios against them. Not all of them are duds. I'd like to elaborate but for security purposes I can't. Of course, that's kinda weasel-ing out of it XP. Sorry. If I can think of a safe way to explain the point, I'll let you know. Or you can google it. Im sure its there somewhere.

If a dozen missiles spelled the doom of a nation England would have fallen.

Who knows such a thing? Heck, who even knows if they get Officers to actually make that call. I dunno if they have Command Sergeant Majors or the like, but his desire would hold high up there with, lets say, a Battle Captain (again, if they have those), not to mention they probably have enlisted members at the actual launch console (if so. I know we do).

Well a more appropriate description is this - take our inspection of the Russian launch systems after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Add less maintenance, less skill, and the irrefutable knowledge that some of these people are very acutely aware that they are on the losing side, what do you get?

Don't get me wrong, North Korea attacking would be horrible, but it is in such a horrible logistical situation that it is seriously paralyzed. It can't really fight - just see how much damage it can do.

[The Overlord]

Just as a note here-


I did not post this to become a flaming political argument even if it fits squarely in the political forums; I’ve been part of too much bad energy in this particular forum.

As I said, I’ve been following this, and I’m concerned. I figure draw a line loosely through the Middle East to Southeast Asia, and you’re likely to hit the candidate country where the nuclear weapons are mostly likely to be next fired in anger.

It’s a corner of the world that’s brought us some of the best and most ancient elements of human culture, but also (at least from a Western perspective) a region where life doesn’t seem to have the same value as it does elsewhere.


Could be wrong on that perspective…I just posted it to get opinions here, many of them informative and good.

[Zeitgeist]

Head to head N. Korea doesn't match well against much of anyone. Britain alone could take 'em. The US? No match.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. China really needs to step up big time.

[The Overlord]

The China equation doesn’t really fit; that being the question of China coming to the military rescue of Kim-Jong.

It comes down to the question of what they could hope to gain versus what could possibly lose, which is literally everything.

We spent decades facing the Iron Curtain with the Iron Triangle, and once the USSR goes kaput, we’re looking across the ideological fence at China.

There was the well-documented spy plane incident c. 2000, but that didn’t last long…9/11 happened and the public finally got what the powers that be already knew: The brewing miasma of disaffected factions leftover from the Cold War had finally turned into a full-fledged shitstorm. Americans and Russians had stepped back from their half-century chess game, and now the pawns were pissed off over being maneuvered and screwed over.


But the fear-mongers in government and business want to ensure we have an opposite number…after all, we HAVE to have an adversary, right? What’s a global superpower to do without one? God forbid we have a military that can crush a half dozen nations simultaneously that has to sit on its ass.


And we’ve all been fucking played with this suicidal paranoia.


Biggest difference between the Cold War and the situation with China; the Russians weren’t manufacturing and shipping everything to Walmart and Bed, Bath, & Beyond. War between the US and China wouldn’t just involve the obvious peril of two of the world’s mostly heavily armed and nuke-toting  nations going at it.

At a time when the world economy is on the brink, a war like this could push the entire globe into the shitter, and I hope the Chinese are also smart enough to realize it.


But let’s face it, even under the Obama administration, nukes could not be used on US troops or interests without an absolutely horrifying reprisal. That’s my concern with Southeast Asia to the Middle East; they might be ancient counties but they’re like 10-year olds that found their father’s gun in the closet. They like to show the world acts of terror, but they don’t understand what true horror is.

[Merlyn]

China hasn't wanted war.  They've wanted North Korea to back down, for a few years now.

And as for war with China, we would most likely be screwed seeing as now most of our steel comes from China. 
Which is part of the reason for our bad economy, China went form being the biggest importer to the biggest exporter of steel in a few years. 
We used to sell them our steel, now we buy it from them.  No steel=no weaponry.

Besides a war of that scale will most likely not happen for many years.  Especially since most other countries would then fear that if China would defeat the US they would be next, and jump in against China. 

[The Overlord]

You're really missing the point. The US and China are economic and military heavyweights, linked in a manner that I heard someone colorfully and accurately describe as a three-legged race with different size partners.

China can't defeat the United States, but at the price of itself. Nobody will 'win' that war...we'll all lose. That's why it's not going to happen and the next doom & gloom forecaster that says otherwise needs to take a hike and STFU.

[Zakharra]

China hasn't wanted war.  They've wanted North Korea to back down, for a few years now.

China could end this tomorrow. They control almost all of N. Korea's oil, energy, supplies and a good chunk of it's food imports. By cutting those off, they'd be able to collapse N. Korea within 1-2 months at the most. N. Korea can not survive without Chinese help. China wants this little dictator to be doing what he is since they can utterly ruin the nation without firing a shot.

[HairyHeretic]

Thats one possibility.

The other possibility is that if China pulls the plug, the seemingly unstable little man in charge over there thinks "I have no more friends. If this is the end, I'm taking all of you with me." and presses every red button he has.

Yes, he'd lose.
Yes, he'd die.

But he would do a LOT of damage before that happened.

[Zakharra]

 True, but he doesn't seem like the type to back down. He's like a 5 year old child throwing a temper tantrum, but his toys are very dangerous ones. When it comes to it though, will the world stand up to him or let him walk over people again? He's like a mugger that is demanding your purse or he'll shoot you.

[HairyHeretic]

Purses are replacable.

I'm curious. Would you be so keen to see him confronted if you were living in range of nuclear or chemical attack?

[Zakharra]

 Yes. Because a man like that will never settle for less and he will keep pushing. Personally, I think he should have been assassinated  long ago. Sane but angery leaders are one thing. Isane ones with access to nuclear weapons and a wilingness to sell to people who will use them is something else.

[The Overlord]

True, but he doesn't seem like the type to back down. He's like a 5 year old child throwing a temper tantrum, but his toys are very dangerous ones. When it comes to it though, will the world stand up to him or let him walk over people again? He's like a mugger that is demanding your purse or he'll shoot you.

To be more accurate, he's a mugger demanding your purse while there's an American and South Korean standing directly behind him...each with the barrel of a shotgun pressed against the back of his skull. Not exactly the most strategically favorable situation to be in.

Based on everything to this point I've seen, the North Korean war effort will get at least partial use of their tunnel network under the DMZ; as I understand they've been doing this for years. The South Koreans find a tunnel built with the aim of putting troops behind the frontline defenders on the DMZ. They find a tunnel or two and demolish them, then NK builds more.

The US strategy as I read it is wholesale decimation of the NK army as it marches on the border. Supposedly the terrain will funnel any large-scale troop movements though lowlands and valleys between mountain peaks and ridges; the US aim is to choke those points with burnt out armor vehicles and corpses.

I also imagine few targets will be off limits; gouging out Pyongyang with massive carpet and strategic bombing strikes will cut the heart out of the North's infrastructure.

No doubt we know exactly where his missile batteries are positioned, and nuclear facilities holding bomb-grade material. Killing the North's ability to even use a nuke is going to obviously be the priority so the war remains conventional.

Based on what's been done in Iraq, a decapitation strike against Kim-Jong and his top brass is likely, if the opportunity presents itself. In Iraq they utterly destroyed Saddam's command and control structure so his army could not coordinate, then they geographically divided the Iraqi map into kill boxes where they took apart the military a piece at a time. Where it comes to direct armor and troops engaging, the famous battle of 73 Easting will be a good example of how NK armor will fare against us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

I expect the North is going to resort to suicide attacks eventually that will do some real damage, but ultimately their decision to use WMD's is going to decide whether they even have a country to rebuild after the fact. If it went nuclear, we could likely use smaller tactical nukes to destroy the military, but one good sized bomb over Pyongyang would spell sudden death for them. If the nuclear stage came to pass, Western commanders would have to the weigh their tactics and consciences on this.


Speaking of which; I think this has all taken a very dangerous turn-


US, SKorea militaries gird for NKorean provocation


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090528/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear

SEOUL, South Korea – The U.S. and South Korea put their military forces on high alert Thursday after North Korea renounced the truce keeping the peace between the two Koreas since 1953.

The North also accused the U.S. of preparing to attack the isolated communist country in the wake of its second nuclear bomb test, and warned it would retaliate to any hostility with "merciless" and dangerous ferocity.

Seoul moved a 3,500-ton destroyer into waters near the Koreas' disputed western maritime border while smaller, high-speed vessels were keeping guard at the front line, South Korean news reports said. The defense ministry said the U.S. and South Korean militaries would increase surveillance activities.

Pyongyang, meanwhile, positioned artillery guns along the west coast on its side of the border, the Yonhap news agency said. The Joint Chiefs of Staffs in Seoul refused to confirm the reports.

The show of force along the heavily fortified border dividing the two Koreas comes three days after North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test and fired a series of short-range missiles.

The test drew immediate condemnation from world leaders and the U.N. Security Council, where ambassadors were discussing a new resolution to punish Pyongyang. President Barack Obama called it a "blatant violation" of international law.

In response, South Korea said it would join more than 90 nations that have agreed to stop and inspect vessels suspected of transporting weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea called South Korea's participation in the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative a prelude to a naval blockade and a violation of the truce signed to end the three-year war that broke out in Korea in 1950.

On Wednesday Pyongyang renounced the 1953 armistice and the following day warned U.S. forces against advancing into its territory.

"The northward invasion scheme by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet regime has exceeded the alarming level," the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "A minor accidental skirmish can lead to a nuclear war."

The U.S., which has 28,500 troops in South Korea and another 50,000 in Japan, has denied it is planning military action. But U.S. and South Korean troops were placed on their highest alert level for more than two years.

The South Korea-U.S. combined forces command rates its surveillance alert on a scale to 5, with 1 being the highest level. On Thursday, the level was raised from 3 to 2, the second-highest level, South Korean Defense Ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae said. He said the last time the alert level was that high was in 2006, when the North conducted its first nuclear test.

Won said both militaries were raising their surveillance activities, although he would not explain what that meant. South Korean media reported that the higher alert would involve increased monitoring of North Korea using satellites and navy ships.

The U.N. Command on Korea said it would continue to observe the armistice, saying it "remains in force and is binding on all signatories, including North Korea."

North Korea has repudiated the armistice several times before, most recently in 2003 and 2006.

South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Moon Tae-young accused the North of "seriously distorting" the decision to join in the initiative.

Seoul has said its military would "respond sternly" to any North Korean provocation, and that it would be able to contain the North with the help of U.S. troops.

The South Korean military has dispatched "personnel and equipment deployment" along its land and sea borders, a Joint Chiefs of Staff officer said. He spoke on condition of anonymity citing department policy.

He said there has been no particular movement of North Korean troops in border areas.

The two Koreas technically remain at war because they signed a truce, not a peace treaty, in 1953. However, North disputes the U.N.-drawn maritime border off their west coast, and used that dispute to provoke deadly naval skirmishes in 1999 and 2002.

South Korea's mass-circulation JoongAng Ilbo newspaper said more anti-air missiles and artillery were dispatched to military bases on islands near the disputed western sea border with North Korea.

Yonhap said the destroyer has artillery guns, anti-ship guided missiles, ship-to-air missiles and torpedoes. Air force fighters are were on standby, the report said.

North Korea's West Sea fleet has 13 submarines and more than 360 vessels, Yonhap said.

The recent flurry of belligerence could reflect an effort by 67-year-old leader Kim Jong Il to boost his standing among his impoverished people.

It was also seen as a test of Obama's new administration, and came as two Americans, journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling, remained in custody in Pyongyang accused of illegal entry and "hostile acts." They face trial in Pyongyang next week.

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso said any new Security Council resolution must be stronger than the one issued after the North's first atomic test in October 2006, and contain sanctions.

A Russian Foreign Ministry official said Moscow did not want to see Pyongyang further isolated. Andrei Nesterenko said Russia opposed sanctions but did not object to a U.N. resolution.

Hong Hyun-ik, a senior analyst at the Sejong Institute security think tank, said sanctions would not be effective unless China — North Korea's traditional ally — implemented them.

"Kim Jong Il must be scoffing" at the talk of sanctions, he said. "He knows the world will forget about any sanctions in the end."

[GS3XXAristo]

Just in case anyone didn't know, I'mma offer a quick comparision of Chinese and American nuclear capabilities:

Number of Nukes China has (Newsweek source): Estimated 400
Number of Nukes America has (same source):  Estimated 9,500
Number of Nukes Russia has (at least whats accounted for, same source): Estimated 15,100

Between China and America, nuclear delivery capabilities fall in favor of American Naval and Aerial forces (China's navy is extremely modern, but they don't have "blue water" capabilities just yet.

That stuff above is just some info I knew about. I honestly don't think any country is at that much of a nuclear advantage (ponders throwing in the fact that Israel has an estimated 80 nukes and France has 400, though I doubt they could manage to even use them effectively XP).

No doubt we know exactly where his missile batteries are positioned, and nuclear facilities holding bomb-grade material. Killing the North's ability to even use a nuke is going to obviously be the priority so the war remains conventional.

Like I said before, his ballistic missiles with their chemical payloads is gonna be problematic. Especially on mobile launchers.

Where it comes to direct armor and troops engaging, the famous battle of 73 Easting will be a good example of how NK armor will fare against us.

That battle took place in the flat, featureless desert. Yeah, weather was bad, but the article said the tracking systems (night vision, etc.) played a big role in our smackdown of their forces. Fighting with NK armor, however, takes place in Korean terrain. Much different.

Thanks for posting that news link though. I'd been in the field searching for reliable info all day on my phone, and usually ended up running into UK news sources which allow random people to post commentary, stating (no suprise) how evil the U.S. is XP. My gf's mom started asking if they're gonna deploy me sooner because of that mess.

Maybe Kim Jung Il, the internet expert he claims he is (wiki that), will just give it all up soon, and continue to sedate himself with Hennessey and american porn.

[Oniya]

Just in case anyone didn't know, I'mma offer a quick comparision of Chinese and American nuclear capabilities:

Number of Nukes China has (Newsweek source): Estimated 400
Number of Nukes America has (same source):  Estimated 9,500
Number of Nukes Russia has (at least whats accounted for, same source): Estimated 15,100

After a certain point, though, the number becomes less important than the willingness to use them - and the amount of key targets that they are aimed at.  I think I need to update my cover of 'So Long, Mom'.

[The Overlord]

.

That battle took place in the flat, featureless desert. Yeah, weather was bad, but the article said the tracking systems (night vision, etc.) played a big role in our smackdown of their forces. Fighting with NK armor, however, takes place in Korean terrain. Much different.

True enough the terrain will often greatly curtail the range. I don't know how well the South Koreans are armored, but ton for ton NK armor won't stand a chance against US armor. In a lot of cases one of Kim-Jong's tanks is going to put a close range round into an Abrams with the resulting 'oh shit' from the crew as they realize it didn't even penetrate.


I figure their tactics are going range widely in an attempt to give us a large casualty list and hurt our resolve to fight. Ambushes with point-blank shots are going to occur, both inside and outside cities. On the larger scale they’ll employ the Golden BB strategy that Saddam tried, figuring that if you shoot enough rounds you're likely to hit some soft spots.

Either way, the North will break on the spearhead of American ground armor...a head-on fight with us is something even the Russians and Chinese don't want to do.

Maybe Kim Jung Il, the internet expert he claims he is (wiki that), will just give it all up soon, and continue to sedate himself with Hennessey and american porn.

Actually, a romp through the mind of history's most noteworthy dictators can be an interesting thing. Not too long before we went into Iraq I read a compelling article about Saddam and his various quirks.

Of the several dozen palaces he had, every one of them had to have a meal prepared, just in case he appeared there. His favorites included seafood, but he was also a wine drinker, including some Western vintages. Being as Saddam kept a face to his nation and the Arab region as a dutiful son of Islam, this was something supposedly known to only to his very inner circle. He liked Western entertainment, including American movies and television.

It's not just that they might hate us...they often hate us for what we have. But an emerging China has proven that given the same resources, much of the world will do EXACTLY as we do. Anti-American sentiment is pot calling kettle black in many cases.

[Sabby]

Only read the title here, so... how exactly does an entire country commit suicide? *laughs* launch a nuke directly up?

[Oniya]

More like 'suicide by cop' - provoke those with the capability to fire in self-defense.

[Apple of Eris]

North Korea isn't in South East Asia, just throwing that out there :)

Oh and BTW, the United States domestically produces approx. 80% of the steel consumed domestically. The biggest concern is if we were unable to import certain ores due to a trade disruption, notably: pig iron, direct-reduced iron, manganese ore, iron ore, and blast furnace coke.

[Merlyn]

Hmm, I must have been mistaken about that part somehow.  My apologies to all about the misinformation on that part.  I'm not quite sure what exactly I had been told, but yes most us steel is domestic right now.

And also the US wouldn't nuke N.K. because we have too many allies in the area that it would harm merely by the radiation alone.

[The Overlord]

North Korea isn't in South East Asia, just throwing that out there :)

Where is it then?

If you roughly quarter Asia, it's not as far south as Laos, Vietnam, etc., but it's certainly not northeast Asia.

Maybe it's the East Far East...

[OldSchoolGamer]

I think the threat from North Korea is overblown.

Kim Jong-il may be a megalomaniac, he's probably accurately described as an asshole, but he's a selfish asshole.  However all of this goes down, he wants to wake up tomorrow morning at 98.6 Fahrenheit, not a hundred thousand. 

His saber-rattling is less like that of some kind of truly dangerous Hitler or Stalin, and more like a spoiled brat of a child saying "hey, lookie at ME!  Me, me, ME!"  Like the child throwing a fit in the supermarket check-out line, he's going to throw only the degree of fit he knows he can get away with.  Jong-il knows the point at which Mommy and Daddy will toss all the candy out of the shopping cart, drag him out of the store, and whup his ass...and he's not going to take it to that extent.

[consortium11]

As I read the situation the main reason for North Korea's current aggresiveness is him simply trying to strengthen his youngest son's position... at the same time all these nuclear tests were taking place news leaked out that Kim had announced his youngest son as succesor.

[SleepyWei]

And what are the chances that N Korea's Communist regime can survive after he dies? I'm not sure about it but it seems that most regimes dies either quickly after the first dictator dies or fades away slowly in the case of Stalin's Soviet Union.

In this case, after N Korea's dictator dies and his son takes over, is there a better chance that N Korea becomes more democratic?

[Apple of Eris]

South East Asia:

Southeast Asia or Southeastern Asia is a subregion of Asia, consisting of the countries that are geographically south of China, east of India and north of Australia. The region lies on the intersection of geological plates, with heavy seismic and volcanic activity.

Southeast Asia consists of two geographic regions: the Asian mainland, and island arcs and archipelagoes to the east and southeast. The mainland section consists of Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia (or to be more precise, Peninsular Malaysia). The maritime section consists of Brunei, East Timor,[1] Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore. Some definitions include Taiwan at the north. Austronesian peoples predominate in this region. The major religions are Buddhism and Islam, followed by Christianity. However a wide variety of religions are found throughout the region, including many Hindu and animist-influenced practices.

That's just cut n pasted from wikipedia cuz i'm lazy.

North Korea:
North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) (Hangul: 조선민주주의인민공화국, Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk), is a state in East Asia, occupying the northern half of the Korean Peninsula. Its capital and largest city is Pyongyang. The Korean Demilitarized Zone serves as the buffer area between North Korea and South Korea. The Amnok River is the border between North Korea and China. The Tumen River in the extreme north-east is the border with Russia.

East Asia:
East Asia is a subregion of Asia that can be defined in either geographical[3] or cultural[4] terms. Geographically and geopolitically, it covers about 12,000,000 km², or about 28 percent of the Asian continent, about 15 percent bigger than the area of Europe, though some categorize Tibet, Xinjiang, and Mongolia as Central Asia. In some contexts, Vietnam is considered part of East Asia because of the significant Chinese cultural influence it has experienced. More than 1.5 billion people, about 38 percent of the population of Asia or 22 percent of all the people in the world, live in geographic East Asia, which is about twice the population of Europe. The region is one of the world's most populated places, with the population density of East Asia, 131 per km², being about three times the world average of 45 per km².[5] Using the UN subregion definitions, it ranks second in population only to South Asia.

Again all from Wiki cuz its all basically the same info as britannica or encarta and I don't feel like copying from multiple sources.

HTH!

[consortium11]

And what are the chances that N Korea's Communist regime can survive after he dies? I'm not sure about it but it seems that most regimes dies either quickly after the first dictator dies or fades away slowly in the case of Stalin's Soviet Union.

In this case, after N Korea's dictator dies and his son takes over, is there a better chance that N Korea becomes more democratic?

I'm honestly not sure. North Korea is remarkably closed off to the world if compared to the like of Cuba... and when Kim Il-sung died Kim Jong-il took over with little talk of an opening up to the world. Burma has seen a succession of military leaders who are de-facto heads of state with little change as each one takes power.

[SleepyWei]

I'm honestly not sure. North Korea is remarkably closed off to the world if compared to the like of Cuba... and when Kim Il-sung died Kim Jong-il took over with little talk of an opening up to the world. Burma has seen a succession of military leaders who are de-facto heads of state with little change as each one takes power.

Hmmm... perhaps each leader that managed to successively retain the dictator regimes did so by instilling new fear into the populace or were very persuasive in making the country better... or a mixture of both.

Well, we can only hope that N Korea's new dictator will be weak mentally especially if Kim has to use nukes ans such to boost his son's image.

[consortium11]

Hmmm... perhaps each leader that managed to successively retain the dictator regimes did so by instilling new fear into the populace or were very persuasive in making the country better... or a mixture of both.

Well, we can only hope that N Korea's new dictator will be weak mentally especially if Kim has to use nukes ans such to boost his son's image.

It's also situations where the military has control and the actual leader is more of a figurehead. In Burma for example it's the Junta that's in control at any given moment so whoever is the actual leader is less important. I'm no expert on the internal politics of North Korea but considering how simple the last change at the top was I'd imagine that if the military establishment respect Kim's chosen succesor little will change.

[SleepyWei]

True, very true. Thanks for the clear up on that. I completely forgot about the possibility of puppet figures.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Well, we can only hope that N Korea's new dictator will be weak mentally especially if Kim has to use nukes ans such to boost his son's image.

If Kim does resort to nukes, he and his son will be reduced to mere clicks on a Geiger counter over the Sea of Japan, and he knows it.  So, again, I think the threat is overblown.  Kim's bark is much worse than his bite, in terms of taking on big nations for keepsies.

[Zakharra]

If Kim does resort to nukes, he and his son will be reduced to mere clicks on a Geiger counter over the Sea of Japan, and he knows it.  So, again, I think the threat is overblown.  Kim's bark is much worse than his bite, in terms of taking on big nations for keepsies.

He might put himself in a situation he cannot back down from. He's the one escalating things, not us or anyone else.  Kim's bark might be worse than his bite, but he does have a nasty bite and if he thinks he can threaten with nukes and get away with it, he'd likely do it.

[Lithos]

Also the sheer level propaganda and psychological programming of people there is pretty unbelievable. Students from around here who actually got a permit to visit there managed to keep cameras hush hush and made a documentary of it.

theme park 1984

Is the name of it, but i do not know if it is available outside Finland, it is spoken in english (even if with accent) so don't see why it would not be. Is pretty unique in that it is in its entirety filmed there and it is recent material too. It is free download here, so not sure why it is not worldwide.

http://www.infinitehumanstupidity.com/Themepark_1984/

Clicking the pic on that one starts the download, but it is restricted to finnish IP addresses only for some reasons :(

If you can use a proxy server that is located here, then it should work. If not, it does float around torrent places for those who can search for it.

[SleepyWei]

Well I'm not very surprised that the populace is so easily controlled. Because N Korean stays hardline Communism, there is practically no real income for those people and therefore, they need something to follow, to lead and control them. The people themselves choose to believe in the lies and such because it's safer for them that way.

It's kind of like in Cuba where the population that makes way less than even a person on welfare find an escape through things like their big soccer games.

[Oniya]

Bread and circuses for modern times?

[Lithos]

Any talk of choice is not appropreriate here. People have nothing else to believe. They do not have TV networks that show actual news, no newspapers that show actual news, no internet. Six day workday and hours of mandatory participation to propaganda performances and training on shooting ranges after work. There is no choice in between thing X and Y there. Oh, and even if there was good free TV network, people still could not watch it cause 90% of apartment buildings are without electricity or central heating. TV and radio need power :P

Also, despite how poor the people are, they are not really unhappy cause they have no idea of better for the most part. Also, north Korea does not represent Communism but Juche that is much different from communism on some important parts. That makes things problematic in relation to other communist countries, since they do not really agree with their political system or lack of either. USSR back in its days and China now supply them with pretty much bare minimum of what they need to survive. 

[Phaia]

the real problem is not the armys but a belief and knowledge of how nuclear weaposn work. We here in the US KNOW no one would survive a nuclear war. That belief is not witha  greta many. Take India and pakastan. Miltary and political members on both sides believe they can survive a nuclear war. It took very hard core experts from the US to begin to make them see that they could not.

I would bet the same applies to North Korea, they BELIEVE they would survive and there fore have no fear about using nuclear weapons or chemical weapons for that matter.. After all the sciencists making those weapons are all north korean and would never say..."Hey we cant surviev using this...instead they say...This one bomb can kill more then 25 divisions...

As a roleplayer I have had to at times look at things froma view I knew was wrong but the character could and did except.

What scares me in this is how many in the world believe nuclear war can be survived!!!

Phaia

[Zakharra]

 Limited nuclear war can be survived. Which is what Pakistan and India would have. N. Korea probably thinks the US would be too chickenshit to respond with nuclear weapons. N. Korea has no problem using them, it's what they think our response would be that will decide wether they use them or not.

[Kurzyk]

The recent news about the journalists being sentenced to 12 years in a labor camp is outrageous. The reports claim that they had stepped into North Korea territory, but the details of their arrest remain unclear.

So far much of the saber rattling has been over the missile tests. What do you guys think this new development will add to the situation?

There is some discussion about whether an envoy should be sent to negotiate. I think this is just a tactic to give north korea a bargaining chip. Is negotiation the best approach here?

[Zakharra]

 It's a bargining chip for N. Korea, to get more consessions from us at the least, or to show others that they can stand up against us.

[The Overlord]

Limited nuclear war can be survived. Which is what Pakistan and India would have.

Survivable yes, but probably not close to any desirable form. With over 1.3 billion souls between the two nations, the Indian subcontinent is going to get very crowded and uninhabitable for the survivors. Even one large bomb over New Delhi and Islamabad is going to pretty much damn both countries.

With both capitals reduced to a glowing urban wasteland, there will be the fallout, the poisoned rivers and other water sources (assuming the Ganges can actually be poisoned further), and lack of consumable food. Any pretense at civilization and government in both countries will evaporate, and the subcontinent will unravel into something Dante would love writing about and Bosch would make a good painting or two of.

People would survive it, yes, but the Indo-Pakistani culture would be effectively dead.

N. Korea probably thinks the US would be too chickenshit to respond with nuclear weapons. N. Korea has no problem using them, it's what they think our response would be that will decide wether they use them or not.

Then they’re damned stupid, because if they used theirs, even Obama would respond with a WMD retaliatory strike, and you’re fooling yourself if you think he wouldn’t.

The same thing has been said of terrorists like bin-laden and his posse, etc., that they’re all gambling the US won’t pull out the biggest weapons in its arsenal.

It’s under 70 years since the last time someone yanked our chain like this and the sleeping giant woke, and he didn’t stop until he smashed the life out of everything that stood in his way. Nations and organizations like this are pretty adept at showing the world terror, but they don’t understand what true horror is. They will understand when they have the full weight of an infuriated United States raining death on them.

[Zakharra]

Survivable yes, but probably not close to any desirable form. With over 1.3 billion souls between the two nations, the Indian subcontinent is going to get very crowded and uninhabitable for the survivors. Even one large bomb over New Delhi and Islamabad is going to pretty much damn both countries.

With both capitals reduced to a glowing urban wasteland, there will be the fallout, the poisoned rivers and other water sources (assuming the Ganges can actually be poisoned further), and lack of consumable food. Any pretense at civilization and government in both countries will evaporate, and the subcontinent will unravel into something Dante would love writing about and Bosch would make a good painting or two of.

People would survive it, yes, but the Indo-Pakistani culture would be effectively dead.

It depends how many where used. India would suffer more than Pakistan. They have more people and are more split along religious lines. Pakistan would  get a lot of supsport from other Muslim nations and since most of it is tribal, it wouldn't suffer that much. There'd be no government, but I could see a jihad arising from there against India. The Muslim people always seem ready to fight at the drop of Allah's name. Look at their reaction to the cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb turban.

You are also assuming they have nukes as powerful as the US and USSR did in the heyday of the Cold War

Then they’re damned stupid, because if they used theirs, even Obama would respond with a WMD retaliatory strike, and you’re fooling yourself if you think he wouldn’t.

The same thing has been said of terrorists like bin-laden and his posse, etc., that they’re all gambling the US won’t pull out the biggest weapons in its arsenal.

It’s under 70 years since the last time someone yanked our chain like this and the sleeping giant woke, and he didn’t stop until he smashed the life out of everything that stood in his way. Nations and organizations like this are pretty adept at showing the world terror, but they don’t understand what true horror is. They will understand when they have the full weight of an infuriated United States raining death on them.

Given what I have seen of the President, I do not think he would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Nations would condom N. Korea for using theirs, but they would also scream at us to -not- use ours. If we did use some, we would be almost, if not more so, condemned for doing so since our military might so vastly overshadows NK's, a nuclear response would seem to be overreacting.

With what has happened so far, 'dialog and diplomacy' would be the prefer ed method of resolving this situation since violence -never ever- solves anything.  The nations that would want to appease NK (Europe and others since they are not in any danger from NK) would push heavily for that, or a non nuclear responce. Then probably blame the US for provoking NK in the first place.

[The Overlord]

The Muslim people always seem ready to fight at the drop of Allah's name. Look at their reaction to the cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb turban.

You are also assuming they have nukes as powerful as the US and USSR did in the heyday of the Cold War

Then they would die at the drop of a hat, fighting a population as large as India. At least some non-Islamic nations would move to India’s defense as well.

A religion-wide jihad against any nation will destroy any credibility world that Islam is a peaceful religion. If Islam goes that route, then for their sake I hope a prayer rug is large enough to roll up and double as a body bag, because they’ll be needing them by the tens or even hundreds of millions. In their zeal to go after a common perceived enemy, Islam could easily spark the crusade that puts them in history’s dead book for good. A full on, no holds barred fight between Islam and the West may end up a Pyrrhic victory for the West, but no matter the outcome, Islam is going to fight its last war. With the United States alone, the sheer power of what could be directed at them would result in a totality.


Also, you don’t need a superpower-sized nuke to ruin a major city, look how many Indians or Pakistanis teeter on the brink of poverty or worse. Either nation would need one modest sized bomb and a good push to send it over the edge into anarchy.

Given what I have seen of the President, I do not think he would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Nations would condom N. Korea for using theirs, but they would also scream at us to -not- use ours. If we did use some, we would be almost, if not more so, condemned for doing so since our military might so vastly overshadows NK's, a nuclear response would seem to be overreacting.

With what has happened so far, 'dialog and diplomacy' would be the prefer ed method of resolving this situation since violence -never ever- solves anything.  The nations that would want to appease NK (Europe and others since they are not in any danger from NK) would push heavily for that, or a non nuclear responce. Then probably blame the US for provoking NK in the first place.

I still believe even Obama would order nukes if nukes were used against US troops, but I offer the specter of the possibility if we were nuked and he refused to respond, elements within the military and Iron Triangle would take the initiative and nuke anyway in retaliation, regardless of who sits in Washington.

The UN spends so much time bickering over nations like NK and not getting anything significant done, what could it really do to protest a justified use of US nukes? The only telling response would be for member states to attack the US, which would trigger an even more devastating response on our part. If any nation decided to play the WMD game with us, the rest of world would be very, very wise to sit it out and not get involved.

[Zakharra]

Then they would die at the drop of a hat, fighting a population as large as India. At least some non-Islamic nations would move to India’s defense as well.

A religion-wide jihad against any nation will destroy any credibility world that Islam is a peaceful religion. If Islam goes that route, then for their sake I hope a prayer rug is large enough to roll up and double as a body bag, because they’ll be needing them by the tens or even hundreds of millions. In their zeal to go after a common perceived enemy, Islam could easily spark the crusade that puts them in history’s dead book for good. A full on, no holds barred fight between Islam and the West may end up a Pyrrhic victory for the West, but no matter the outcome, Islam is going to fight its last war. With the United States alone, the sheer power of what could be directed at them would result in a totality.


Also, you don’t need a superpower-sized nuke to ruin a major city, look how many Indians or Pakistanis teeter on the brink of poverty or worse. Either nation would need one modest sized bomb and a good push to send it over the edge into anarchy.

Nuking Pakistan would have the added effect of galvanizing the muslim nations to support it. Which would be very bad for us and good for the radicals.

I still believe even Obama would order nukes if nukes were used against US troops, but I offer the specter of the possibility if we were nuked and he refused to respond, elements within the military and Iron Triangle would take the initiative and nuke anyway in retaliation, regardless of who sits in Washington.

The UN spends so much time bickering over nations like NK and not getting anything significant done, what could it really do to protest a justified use of US nukes? The only telling response would be for member states to attack the US, which would trigger an even more devastating response on our part. If any nation decided to play the WMD game with us, the rest of world would be very, very wise to sit it out and not get involved.

The military would not launch nukes without the President's specific say so. The ones in charge of the nukes are very carefully selected so they will not launch a nuke without orders.

Now what is a justified nuke response by the US? If some are used on S. Korea? On Japan? I would say not. Only if a nuke was launched at the US, would Obama feel pressured to retaliate by launching our own nukes. I do not think that he has the will to launch nukes unless the US is attacked directly and I'm doubtful he would respond with nukes even then.

How the UN would react? Look at how they reacted for the Iraq war. At the time, the US thought it has sufficient reason to go in militarily. Whether or not we know know that it was the right/wrong thing to do. AT THE TIME there was thought sufficient proof to do it. The UN disagreed, but did nothing. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[The Overlord]

Nuking Pakistan would have the added effect of galvanizing the muslim nations to support it. Which would be very bad for us and good for the radicals.

And again I say, if the Muslim world galvanizes behind their radicals for any reason, that's the beginning of the end for them. Now at least they have the latitude to distance themselves, creating our need to strike surgically and cut the cancer out of the Muslim nations without harming the good that's left.

If Islam is seen to go wholesale jihad, it will free up the West for gloves-off wholesale dismantling of their nations. There's little point in trying to bring suicide bombers and WMD's to your enemies' cities when yours are being utterly erased.

If Islam goes into a full-scale strategic war with the West, it's going to lose, period, end of story. The corner of the world that fights at a drop of a hat will have more death and conflict on their hands then they'll ever have the stomach for. It's been estimated that going with everything we have, we (the US) could take apart the Middle East in about 72 hours. Throwing masses of enraged fighters at us won't be enough; the US military is designed to be a meat grinder for that sort of thing.

I can only hope they're sane enough to realize it. The nations that are talking smack  now won't be there if it comes down to it.

[The Overlord]

To touch on this one for the glaring errors in it-

Now what is a justified nuke response by the US? If some are used on S. Korea? On Japan? I would say not. Only if a nuke was launched at the US, would Obama feel pressured to retaliate by launching our own nukes. I do not think that he has the will to launch nukes unless the US is attacked directly and I'm doubtful he would respond with nukes even then.

At last check, we still have at least 30,000 troops in South Korea, and at least 50,000 in Japan.


The Koreas and Japan are not huge nations; and they’re going to be uncomfortably small for weapons of that scale. Nukes are not discriminating weapons; there’s no way Kim Jong can use his on either country without getting US troops as well...if not directly at least in the fallout.


Nuking either South Korea or Japan would not only be nuking an ally, but also nuking US troops. NO standing president is going to accept that, and the public outcry to react will be too large to ignore.


Which brings me to my original point here; by threatening to use his nukes, Kim Jong is effectively threatening to commit suicide.

[Zakharra]

To touch on this one for the glaring errors in it-



At last check, we still have at least 30,000 troops in South Korea, and at least 50,000 in Japan.


The Koreas and Japan are not huge nations; and they’re going to be uncomfortably small for weapons of that scale. Nukes are not discriminating weapons; there’s no way Kim Jong can use his on either country without getting US troops as well...if not directly at least in the fallout.


Nuking either South Korea or Japan would not only be nuking an ally, but also nuking US troops. NO standing president is going to accept that, and the public outcry to react will be too large to ignore.


Which brings me to my original point here; by threatening to use his nukes, Kim Jong is effectively threatening to commit suicide.

IF nukes are used on US soil, we 'might' have a nuclear response. It they go off on another nation's soil, the odds of us using nukes is very very unlikely. Whether or not US troops are on the ground there. I think there is a 4 in 100 chance of Obama using nukes if a bomb or two went off on US soil. If they go off on another nation's soil? .00015 in 100 chance he'd respond in a similar manner.

The world bitches at us for having nukes, if we were to use them on an enemy that is NOT threatening or has used them on the US, we would be condemned almost as bad as NK. In fact, the fact that US troops would die as a result would have a lot of people blaming us for provoking him in the first place. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Do you think Obama would want to be remembered as the President that nuked a small nation? I don't.

Would Kim piss off a lot of people? Hell yes. would he care if he thought everything he worked for was going to collapse? Hell no. considering what he has done to his sown country, he could care less what the world thinks of him, as long as he gets what he wants by waving the 'Nuke'em' stick around. Nuclear blackmail.

You keep thinking he is a rational man. He's not. A rational man makes rational decisions most of the time. Insane people do not necessarily do that. Especially power mad ego maniacs like Kim. He does not think like you. Remember that. He will NOT react as you think in a situation.  I work off of the assumption he does not think like me at all. Eventually he will back himself into a corner with his insane antics.

[The Overlord]

IF nukes are used on US soil, we 'might' have a nuclear response.

You’re joking, right?

It would be based on circumstances, obviously. If it were a nation state, we certainly would retaliate with nukes, and in a fashion that would tear them a sphincter wide enough to drive the planet Mars through.
If it were a terrorist group, that’s where the IF comes in. All depends on where they are. If it was, hypothetically, al queda, after 911 nobody would tolerate AQ getting a nuke into one of our cities. The one way to guarantee that all of AQ are out of the Afghan mountains is to just glass them. Please don’t say it can’t happen, that’s delusional…I recall a CNN interview with a Russian veteran in Afghanistan right after 911 who surmised the one way to guarantee victory there would be to A-bomb the mountains. I'm sure even the Kremlin has floated the strategy if worse came to worse.


Based on the NATO pact, what do you think would have happened if the USSR used a nuke on West Germany or the UK? You’re damn right we’d respond nuclear, and the Russians at least were smart and sane enough to know it.

Because you see Zakharra, that’s what an ally is. An ally. The South Koreans haven’t had US troops hosted on their soil for over a half century so they can compare barbecue recipes with us, and the US and Japan have had a defense treaty since the end of WWII. If Kim Jong nuked Japan, number one the outrage from the only nation to have been nuked in wartime would be uncontrollable, and we’d be duty bound to respond. Hell frakking yes we’d fire ours.

The world bitches at us for having nukes, if we were to use them on an enemy that is NOT threatening or has used them on the US, we would be condemned almost as bad as NK. In fact, the fact that US troops would die as a result would have a lot of people blaming us for provoking him in the first place. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Do the history: The Korean War started because North Korea staged a pre-dawn attack on the south. The entire history of NK has been a half century chain of provocation. Everyone with any sense understands why US troops are backing up South Korean troops at what is the world’s most heavily defended boarder; because North Korea is an anathema on the list of nations.

The rest of the world could damn us or praise us for sticking Kim Jong’s head up his ass in a renewed war, but once again, they would be extremely wise to stay out of it.

Do you think Obama would want to be remembered as the President that nuked a small nation? I don't.

Do you think Harry Truman wanted to be either? No president does, but they ALL go into office with the knowledge they might be the one, the one that has to give the order. If they can’t understand that, they have no business sitting in the Oval Office.

I believe you’re making a critical error in judgement here, however. Just because Obama is our best chance for reestablishing America’s image aboard and fostering peace or understanding, you seem to believe he’s going to prove a pacifist, who will sit staring blankly with inaction when the nation is under fire.

No, actually that was Bush on 9/11.


I believe history will prove Obama has what it takes. Hopefully not by giving the order to throw the football, but through much more desirable means.

Would Kim piss off a lot of people? Hell yes. would he care if he thought everything he worked for was going to collapse? Hell no. considering what he has done to his sown country, he could care less what the world thinks of him, as long as he gets what he wants by waving the 'Nuke'em' stick around. Nuclear blackmail.

You keep thinking he is a rational man. He's not. A rational man makes rational decisions most of the time. Insane people do not necessarily do that. Especially power mad ego maniacs like Kim. He does not think like you. Remember that. He will NOT react as you think in a situation.  I work off of the assumption he does not think like me at all. Eventually he will back himself into a corner with his insane antics.

The blackmail is going to reach a point where it will have no further effect, which I firmly believe is the here and now. NK has a long and colorful history of saber rattling, but with a series of recent nuke and missile tests, he’s at the point where he’s going to have to put up or shut up. Either put your money where your mouth is, or back down and STFU, because the former will get you all killed.


No, he’s not rational, and I’m concerned for the North Korean people too because of it. It’s why I’ll assume part of the US/SK strategic operation, should the shooting start, is to cut the head off from the beginning. Killing Kim Jong would be priority number one, because it would leave his army either rudderless or staffed by leaders much more willing to listen to the voice of reason.



But you’re considering just the world reaction to our use of heavy weaponry, but I feel there’s much more at stake: If someone uses a nuke on us, we HAVE to use one. We’re downright obligated to use one.

Why? Because it would be a siren call to whomever we’re fighting that they can use even a nuke on us, and we won’t have the stomach for a full-tilt war. We have to nuke in return, because with the various nations and terror organizations giving us the finger, only the harshest and most severe reprisal will make them understand you don’t screw with us.

You are correct, Kim Jong does not think like us, nor do most terrorists and dictators. They rule and operate by threat, fear and force; it’s their common tongue and the one thing they understand.


When someone comes into your villages and burns things, you don’t just knock him on his ass and then negotiate with his employer. You behead and disembowel the son of a bitch, and his send his entrails back FedEx to whoever sent him, with the clear message- This will happen to ALL of you if we see any more shit.

[HairyHeretic]

The problem there is, how do you nuke a terrorist?

Terrorists aren't nation states. They may hide in them. They may even have covert backing from them, but that can be difficult to prove as state sanctioned.

No nation is going to want to have a nuke set off on their territory. Even a small one. And if you choose to nuke a nation state in an attempt to deal with any kind of rogue element, you're opening an entirely different can of worms.

[Zakharra]

You’re joking, right?

It would be based on circumstances, obviously. If it were a nation state, we certainly would retaliate with nukes, and in a fashion that would tear them a sphincter wide enough to drive the planet Mars through.
If it were a terrorist group, that’s where the IF comes in. All depends on where they are. If it was, hypothetically, al queda, after 911 nobody would tolerate AQ getting a nuke into one of our cities. The one way to guarantee that all of AQ are out of the Afghan mountains is to just glass them. Please don’t say it can’t happen, that’s delusional…I recall a CNN interview with a Russian veteran in Afghanistan right after 911 who surmised the one way to guarantee victory there would be to A-bomb the mountains. I'm sure even the Kremlin has floated the strategy if worse came to worse.


Based on the NATO pact, what do you think would have happened if the USSR used a nuke on West Germany or the UK? You’re damn right we’d respond nuclear, and the Russians at least were smart and sane enough to know it.

Because you see Zakharra, that’s what an ally is. An ally. The South Koreans haven’t had US troops hosted on their soil for over a half century so they can compare barbecue recipes with us, and the US and Japan have had a defense treaty since the end of WWII. If Kim Jong nuked Japan, number one the outrage from the only nation to have been nuked in wartime would be uncontrollable, and we’d be duty bound to respond. Hell frakking yes we’d fire ours.

I'm not joking. The population of the US might be very heavily inclined to toss back nukes, but do you think the international communinty, especially Japan wants US tossing megaton nukes back at NK? IF we responded to one or two nukes going off, we would be soundly condemed for doing so. Why? Because NO ONE wants nukes being used in war. I do not think Obama has the guts to toss a nuke or two back if they were to be ground burst. 'Possibly' a high air burst for the EMP, but that would likely mess up parts of SK too. Obama is almost an international popstar with his popularity.

The pressure to not use nukes is tremendous and I do not think he wants to be known as the President that used them again. WWII and Trumen was a completely different era and situation.

Do the history: The Korean War started because North Korea staged a pre-dawn attack on the south. The entire history of NK has been a half century chain of provocation. Everyone with any sense understands why US troops are backing up South Korean troops at what is the world’s most heavily defended boarder; because North Korea is an anathema on the list of nations.

The rest of the world could damn us or praise us for sticking Kim Jong’s head up his ass in a renewed war, but once again, they would be extremely wise to stay out of it.

Yes, we did not start that war. People do understand why we are backing up SK, and China backs up NK. I do not know what would happen if the war on the Korean penninsula heated back up again. Would China supply troops and material again? That's an unknown factor.

Do you think Harry Truman wanted to be either? No president does, but they ALL go into office with the knowledge they might be the one, the one that has to give the order. If they can’t understand that, they have no business sitting in the Oval Office.

I believe you’re making a critical error in judgement here, however. Just because Obama is our best chance for reestablishing America’s image aboard and fostering peace or understanding, you seem to believe he’s going to prove a pacifist, who will sit staring blankly with inaction when the nation is under fire.

No, actually that was Bush on 9/11.


I believe history will prove Obama has what it takes. Hopefully not by giving the order to throw the football, but through much more desirable means.

Yes, they do go into the office knowing they might have to, but none since Regan have ever expected that they might actually do it. That was a Cold War mentality with the USSR as the main opponent.

With what he has shown so far, he'd rather talk than act. Talking doesn;t work with some people. NK being one of those people/nations.

And Bush did not sit passively by on 9/11, so toss that right out.

The blackmail is going to reach a point where it will have no further effect, which I firmly believe is the here and now. NK has a long and colorful history of saber rattling, but with a series of recent nuke and missile tests, he’s at the point where he’s going to have to put up or shut up. Either put your money where your mouth is, or back down and STFU, because the former will get you all killed.


No, he’s not rational, and I’m concerned for the North Korean people too because of it. It’s why I’ll assume part of the US/SK strategic operation, should the shooting start, is to cut the head off from the beginning. Killing Kim Jong would be priority number one, because it would leave his army either rudderless or staffed by leaders much more willing to listen to the voice of reason.



But you’re considering just the world reaction to our use of heavy weaponry, but I feel there’s much more at stake: If someone uses a nuke on us, we HAVE to use one. We’re downright obligated to use one.

Why? Because it would be a siren call to whomever we’re fighting that they can use even a nuke on us, and we won’t have the stomach for a full-tilt war. We have to nuke in return, because with the various nations and terror organizations giving us the finger, only the harshest and most severe reprisal will make them understand you don’t screw with us.

You are correct, Kim Jong does not think like us, nor do most terrorists and dictators. They rule and operate by threat, fear and force; it’s their common tongue and the one thing they understand.


When someone comes into your villages and burns things, you don’t just knock him on his ass and then negotiate with his employer. You behead and disembowel the son of a bitch, and his send his entrails back FedEx to whoever sent him, with the clear message- This will happen to ALL of you if we see any more shit.

So far no President has shown to want to do more than talk and give tribut.. eeerr.. aid, to NK. I think he will either back himself into a corner or find himself at a point he thinks he has to use it in an attempt to reconquer the Korean penninsula before his death and/or military is incapable of doing so from the sanctions.

Right now, much of the world resents the heavy handed use of US military power. How much more resentment would their be if we used the nuclear options? There is a chance, a high one that depends what nation we'd drop one on, that it would incite more hated against us. If we dropped one on Iran if they did manage to nuke Isreal, the muslim world would explode against us. Why? Because we nuked muslims. It's alsready showhn itself to be a violent and unstable religion (based on the fact that hundreds of millions of muslims are wiling to call for the death of a newspaper publisher for printing a picture of Mohammad wearing a bomb turbin)..

Are there millions of non violent muslims? Yes, but there is a much much higher percentage that see it as God's will to use violence to kill the infidel. Christianity has pretty much cleaned up is's violent past. Islam has yet to do that.

When someone comes into your villages and burns things, you don’t just knock him on his ass and then negotiate with his employer. You behead and disembowel the son of a bitch, and his send his entrails back FedEx to whoever sent him, with the clear message- This will happen to ALL of you if we see any more shit.

That's exactly the image people thought of about Bush. Heavy handed, not paying attention to the reasoned world opinion and doing what he/America wants no matter what the rest of the world thought about it.

[Zakharra]

The problem there is, how do you nuke a terrorist?

Terrorists aren't nation states. They may hide in them. They may even have covert backing from them, but that can be difficult to prove as state sanctioned.

No nation is going to want to have a nuke set off on their territory. Even a small one. And if you choose to nuke a nation state in an attempt to deal with any kind of rogue element, you're opening an entirely different can of worms.

This is the biggest potential problem. If a terrorist group (assuming Islamic radicals) does get and use a nuke. How do you respond? The group would get tremendous prestige for using a nuke on the US, or whatever nation. Which would draw in support and recruits. They do not care too much about how the non-muslim world sees them. It's their own people/religion they care about. Especially forcing it on others.

The response would generate more recruits no matter what we did.

[kylie]

N. Korea probably thinks the US would be too chickenshit to respond with nuclear weapons. N. Korea has no problem using them, it's what they think our response would be that will decide wether they use them or not.

Perhaps splitting hairs, but we have fuel-air explosives and bunker busters.  Not to mention thousands of other very big "everyday" explosives and more specialized devices to ruin life.  Sure "nuke" has a symbolic ring to it, but overkill is still overkill. 

However, a non-nuclear option sounds environmentally nicer (I haven't researched what fuel-air bombs leave drifting in the wind, if anything).  If nothing else, think of the neighbors.

I don't expect the cases of the two women to have a big impact.  They can trade people for people sooner or later; that seems to be historically commonplace.  On the other hand, the UN and US have already growled about interdicting more ships.  So, I'd be surprised if that was put off now that political capital is invested.
 

[HairyHeretic]

This is the biggest potential problem. If a terrorist group (assuming Islamic radicals) does get and use a nuke. How do you respond? The group would get tremendous prestige for using a nuke on the US, or whatever nation. Which would draw in support and recruits. They do not care too much about how the non-muslim world sees them. It's their own people/religion they care about. Especially forcing it on others.

The response would generate more recruits no matter what we did.

Perhaps so, but indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon will kill innocents, and frankly I don't know what it would do for a nations international reputation. I suspect at the least they'd find themselves in a hell of a diplomatic spot.

[kylie]

Are there millions of non violent muslims? Yes, but there is a much much higher percentage that see it as God's will to use violence to kill the infidel.

This sounds awful sweeping to me.  Do you really have any evidence to indict a whole religion? 

Not specific groups, sects, historical movements or even national governments?  But really, all the Muslims??? 
It's like saying the majority of people in red states must want to bomb North Korea tomorrow, no questions asked.

[Zakharra]

This sounds awful sweeping to me.  Do you really have any evidence to indict a whole religion? 

Not specific groups, sects, historical movements or even national governments?  But really, all the Muslims??? 
It's like saying the majority of people in red states must want to bomb North Korea tomorrow, no questions asked.

It's indicative of the entire religion that it is the most violent one in the world. An excellent example is the Mohammad cartoon incident. How many muslims were outrages at that? Calling for the death of the publisher? Millions, tends of millions? Hundreds of millions. The muslim faith calls for jihad and the imams preach jihad, or holy war (death to unbelievers), try to instill their harsh religious laws which are not humanitarian at all, on the areas they live in.

It is indicative of the muslim faith that they do not clean up their own. More muslims are decent people, I will admit, but the fact that there are millions, if not hundreds of millions,m willing to scream 'Death to the infidel!'  at the drop of a hat, and are perfectly willing to kill to impose their beliefs to get that goal, says something about the religion in general. Including a willingness to kill their own if they get in the way.

Untill the moderate muslims stop that sort of behavior, Islam will retain it's place as the most violent and repressive faith on the planet.

[Lithos]

Personally I think that North Korea can be dealt with quite efficiently with conventional weapons if push comes to shove. If they use nukes somewhere though, there is bound to be similar retaliation, or everyone starts to use theirs randomly without fear of retaliation as well.

And to comment off topic branch of this discussion (perhaps the thing should snip to different thread):

It's indicative of the entire religion that it is the most violent one in the world.

This sentence proves how much people research their topics, I suggest making a list of incidents throughout the history, based on religion of the main figures. They seem leaders in making violent statements, but not where it comes to getting things done.

Including a willingness to kill their own if they get in the way.

If we do research on armed conflicts around the world, we are shocked to find out that there are ton of instances of christians killing eachother, increasingly succesfully when we come to modern times :)

Untill the moderate muslims stop that sort of behavior, Islam will retain it's place as the most violent and repressive faith on the planet.

This is based on false statement, making it false as well.

[HairyHeretic]

It's indicative of the entire religion that it is the most violent one in the world. An excellent example is the Mohammad cartoon incident. How many muslims were outrages at that? Calling for the death of the publisher? Millions, tends of millions? Hundreds of millions.

I'd like to see proof of those figures please.

The muslim faith calls for jihad and the imams preach jihad, or holy war (death to unbelievers),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

The term "Jihad" used without any qualifiers is generally understood in the West to be referring to holy war on behalf of Islam.[5] In broader usage and interpretation, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can simply mean striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.[7] The relative importance of these two forms of jihad is a matter of controversy.

Jihad means a lot more than holy war.

try to instill their harsh religious laws which are not humanitarian at all, on the areas they live in.

Some do, some don't. There also appears to be quite a degree of interpretation of the law.

It is indicative of the muslim faith that they do not clean up their own. More muslims are decent people, I will admit, but the fact that there are millions, if not hundreds of millions,m willing to scream 'Death to the infidel!'  at the drop of a hat, and are perfectly willing to kill to impose their beliefs to get that goal, says something about the religion in general. Including a willingness to kill their own if they get in the way.

Screaming invective ... check
Willing to kill to impose their religious beliefs ... check
Willingness to kill their own ... check

Says a lot about a religion, doesn't it?

Or are you willing to admit its the small minority of extremists that cause the problems?

Untill the moderate muslims stop that sort of behavior, Islam will retain it's place as the most violent and repressive faith on the planet.

Islam is a few centuries younger than Christianity. Perhaps you'd like to compare what its adherents were doing 500 or 600 years ago, and then see how things compare, hmm?

[The Overlord]

And Bush did not sit passively by on 9/11, so toss that right out.

Watch the video again when he gets the news. We'll move onto the rest once that's sunk in.

[Zakharra]

Watch the video again when he gets the news. We'll move onto the rest once that's sunk in.

Maybe he trusted his subordinates to do what he hired them to do. What could he have done? Not a whole hell of a lot.

[The Overlord]

Maybe he trusted his subordinates to do what he hired them to do. What could he have done? Not a whole hell of a lot.

What could he have done? What could he have done? Good god, the man was the frakking president.

He sat in at a school function when it happened. When advised of what was occurring, other than the now famous blank stare of indecision, the correct move would have been to conclude the public appearance and get with his cabinet and advisors. Would it have been abrupt to just wrap things up and leave? Given the events of that day, I doubt there would have been objections.


The man orders a war and invasion into Iraq based on trumped up charges of WMD's.

His two term tradition of opening up federally protected lands for oil drilling and undoing years of environmental legislation is criminal and all but makes him an environmental terrorist. Terrorists fighting terrorists, isn't that rich? (and yes, I DO consider him a terrorist in that regard)

How is it that you Bush supporters still think he was a good and effective president? This is not meant to be insulting, seriously, help me understand the logic on how you perceive your golden boy.

Just check out sources like the Sierra Club if you want to know what the guy's really been up to over his two terms.

[Zakharra]

Personally I think that North Korea can be dealt with quite efficiently with conventional weapons if push comes to shove. If they use nukes somewhere though, there is bound to be similar retaliation, or everyone starts to use theirs randomly without fear of retaliation as well.

Yes. It's likely to be a conventional war in response. Japan is very leery of a nuclear exchange, I cannot see them wanting one right offshore of their homeland.

And to comment off topic branch of this discussion (perhaps the thing should snip to different thread):

This sentence proves how much people research their topics, I suggest making a list of incidents throughout the history, based on religion of the main figures. They seem leaders in making violent statements, but not where it comes to getting things done.

I am speaking of now. THIS current time. I'm well aware that Christianity is bathed in blood.

If we do research on armed conflicts around the world, we are shocked to find out that there are ton of instances of christians killing eachother, increasingly succesfully when we come to modern times :)

This is based on false statement, making it false as well.

  They are not necessarily doing it as an act of 'Gods' will!'  Are there radical Christian terrorist groups assassinating, bombing and causing mayham? No. Are there crackpots that are Christian, doing it? Yes, but there is no organized religious push for it. Unlike the muslim faith in which there is such a push.

I'd like to see proof of those figures please.

Go and look at the Islamic nations media coverage during that incident. Most of what I heard, from all the US media outlets, liberal and conservative, showed outrage at the cartoon being printed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Jihad means a lot more than holy war.

That is the most common view of Jihad, and the one thrown around and used the most too. The terrorists see this as a holy war. For them it is a religious war.

Some do, some don't. There also appears to be quite a degree of interpretation of the law.

True, but they do try and impose their own religious law on the area. England I believe is allowing sharia law to be used in certain areas. There are some very hard punishments that are still used via the Koran in the Islamic world.  I find it distasteful that they cannot go by English law in the secular. They now have a foothold in the English land and I doubt they'd give it up easily.



[snip]

Screaming invective ... check
Willing to kill to impose their religious beliefs ... check
Willingness to kill their own ... check

Says a lot about a religion, doesn't it?

Or are you willing to admit its the small minority of extremists that cause the problems?[/quote]

The vast majority of the Christians stop at the screaming. They use the laws and voting to try and change things, not killing those who stand in the way. 

I agree that there are a small minority, but the violent Islamic minority is larger than the Christian one and more willing and able to get support for it's actions.

Islam is a few centuries younger than Christianity. Perhaps you'd like to compare what its adherents were doing 500 or 600 years ago, and then see how things compare, hmm?

Islam doesn't seem to be wanting to move past that though. If I remember right, the Koran  does not recognize a difference between religious and secular law. The religion must be the law of the land.  We saw how well that was applied in Afghanistan under the Taliban. They imposed sharia law on the land.  The fact that Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity is irrelevant. It's what they are doing now, how they treat their own people and their neighbors now that concerns me.

[Zakharra]

What could he have done? What could he have done? Good god, the man was the frakking president.

He sat in at a school function when it happened. When advised of what was occurring, other than the now famous blank stare of indecision, the correct move would have been to conclude the public appearance and get with his cabinet and advisors. Would it have been abrupt to just wrap things up and leave? Given the events of that day, I doubt there would have been objections.

He let his officials handle the situation, and when he was in the air, flying around with a military escort to keep him safe since Washington DC wasn't considered safe atm, he was ripped by the ABC anchor for acting like a coward (not an exact quote, but that was the gist of it)

The man orders a war and invasion into Iraq based on trumped up charges of WMD's.

3 years after 9/11. Afghanistan was first. He had other reasons for taking out Iraq. I do admit the aftermath was badly handled. It could have been much better done.

His two term tradition of opening up federally protected lands for oil drilling and undoing years of environmental legislation is criminal and all but makes him an environmental terrorist. Terrorists fighting terrorists, isn't that rich? (and yes, I DO consider him a terrorist in that regard)

Considering that some of the best oil resources the US can have are what is on it's own lands, and that it's forbidden from getting such, requiring us to rely on foreign oil, I think that was a smart thing to do. Conservation alone will not help the US stop or ease our dependance on foreign oil supplies.

How is it that you Bush supporters still think he was a good and effective president? This is not meant to be insulting, seriously, help me understand the logic on how you perceive your golden boy.

Just check out sources like the Sierra Club if you want to know what the guy's really been up to over his two terms.

I do not think he was a great President. He did many things I did not like. Spending far too much, making government bigger, not using science to help decide things. He was decent for the time he lived in. Only time will tell if he was great, good or a bad President. No one alive now can look at it with an impartial  eye.

[HairyHeretic]

  They are not necessarily doing it as an act of 'Gods' will!'  Are there radical Christian terrorist groups assassinating, bombing and causing mayham? No. Are there crackpots that are Christian, doing it? Yes, but there is no organized religious push for it. Unlike the muslim faith in which there is such a push.

Actually there are radical christian terrorist groups active. The fact that they're not active in the US doesn't mean that they aren't active in other parts of the world. And they kill, and the bomb, and they cause mayhem.

Go and look at the Islamic nations media coverage during that incident. Most of what I heard, from all the US media outlets, liberal and conservative, showed outrage at the cartoon being printed.

Outrage, yes. But you made the claim of potentially hundreds of millions calling for the death of the publisher. Now, I want you to back that statement up.

That is the most common view of Jihad, and the one thrown around and used the most too. The terrorists see this as a holy war. For them it is a religious war.

Terrorists don't tend to see things quite the same way as the rest of the population.

True, but they do try and impose their own religious law on the area. England I believe is allowing sharia law to be used in certain areas. There are some very hard punishments that are still used via the Koran in the Islamic world.  I find it distasteful that they cannot go by English law in the secular. They now have a foothold in the English land and I doubt they'd give it up easily.

England is allowing Sharia law in civil divorce I believe, and possibly a few other civil law areas, provided both parties agree to such arbitration.

Incidentally, are you equally outraged at the equivalent Jewish religious law which they allow to be practiced as well?

The vast majority of the Christians stop at the screaming. They use the laws and voting to try and change things, not killing those who stand in the way. 

And the vast majority of Muslims do likewise.

I agree that there are a small minority, but the violent Islamic minority is larger than the Christian one and more willing and able to get support for it's actions.

Terrorists will always have their supporters. How many Americans funneled cash to the IRA during the Troubles? No doubt most thought that the money would only be used for humanitarian purposes, but hey, all those machine guns don't come cheap, do they?

Islam doesn't seem to be wanting to move past that though. If I remember right, the Koran  does not recognize a difference between religious and secular law. The religion must be the law of the land.  We saw how well that was applied in Afghanistan under the Taliban. They imposed sharia law on the land. 

I can't speak about the religious / secular law thing, but I could probably find out from some muslims what it actually says.

The Taliban imposed one interpretation of sharia law. Contrast, I believe, Malaysia. Not quite the same, are they?

The fact that Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity is irrelevant. It's what they are doing now, how they treat their own people and their neighbors now that concerns me.

You said that christianity had outgrown its violent past. 700 years ago, how were christians treating their neighbours? If you're going to compare the two, surely you have to compare them at similar states in development for a comparison to be fair?

As a little example of what christianity was up to at the time, have a read about the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade in France in the 1200s. Here's a little sample

The crusader army came under the command, both spiritual and military, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars.

The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, several hundred years later was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." — "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."[7][8] The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there including many women and children. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[9] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."[10][11]. The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000.

Kill them all, God will know his own.

[Zakharra]

Actually there are radical christian terrorist groups active. The fact that they're not active in the US doesn't mean that they aren't active in other parts of the world. And they kill, and the bomb, and they cause mayhem.

Outrage, yes. But you made the claim of potentially hundreds of millions calling for the death of the publisher. Now, I want you to back that statement up.

No. I will not take it back. There are over 1 billion muslims on this world. It is the fastest growing religion and is the most violent by far of any existing today. All of the news agencies were showing was from the Islamic nations news services and several governments protested. Internet sites were rather hot about it too. Also the Danish embassies in several nations were stormed and burned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Descriptions_of_the_drawings


The percentage of Muslim to Christian terrorists on the scale of Al'qadaa isn;t the same. There are far more terrorists than Christians. The muslims are much more violent too. Whe was the last time you heard of a Christian group taking credit for a abombing? Of one making calls for it's followers to mnurder and kill the infidel? Of calls for holy war?  I haven't and if there were, you8 can bet the US news would pick up on that real quick.

Terrorists don't tend to see things quite the same way as the rest of the population.

England is allowing Sharia law in civil divorce I believe, and possibly a few other civil law areas, provided both parties agree to such arbitration.

Incidentally, are you equally outraged at the equivalent Jewish religious law which they allow to be practiced as well?

True. They don't.  I don't think any religious law should be folllowed. In either civil or secular courts of law. Religion has no place in setting up the laws of a government since not everyone follows the same religion.

And the vast majority of Muslims do likewise.

Terrorists will always have their supporters. How many Americans funneled cash to the IRA during the Troubles? No doubt most thought that the money would only be used for humanitarian purposes, but hey, all those machine guns don't come cheap, do they?


I can't speak about the religious / secular law thing, but I could probably find out from some muslims what it actually says.

The Taliban imposed one interpretation of sharia law. Contrast, I believe, Malaysia. Not quite the same, are they?

If it is done legally, I have less of a problem in that.  Please check with some muslims if you can. I do not know any where I live. Please ask them if it says that, in a literal sense. Ie, what a Taliban, Terrorist/radical would believe.


 

You said that christianity had outgrown its violent past. 700 years ago, how were christians treating their neighbours? If you're going to compare the two, surely you have to compare them at similar states in development for a comparison to be fair?

As a little example of what christianity was up to at the time, have a read about the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade in France in the 1200s. Here's a little sample

Kill them all, God will know his own.

So? The fact that 700 years ago the Christian kingdoms were doing that has nothing to do with right now. Or does religion have a grace period for violent actions?

'From it's founding until it reaches about 1700 years of age, this (insert religion) is expected and can follow a path of violence to further it's goals.'

I know Chrisitanity did some brutal things in it's past. The First Crusade was one of the worst. Along with the Inquisition and the Spanish conquest of Central/South america. Thankfully that time is past and I hope it never comes again. Islam is NOT past that point. Why should they be given a pass because   when Christianity was1400 years of age, it was doing close to the same thing?

[Oniya]

Actually, he didn't ask you to 'take it back', he asked you to 'back it up'.

[Zakharra]

  /facepalm

I totally misread that. Multi-tasking is not your friend sometimes! I'll work on that tomorrow when I have some time to do searches.

[kylie]

Um, I sort of kicked off a hijack there.  If it's better to relocate the Islam stuff, I won't mind.

I'm still very skeptical of the assertion that a majority "hundreds of millions" of Muslims are calling for bombings, etc.  I think that is confusing the actions of a minority, with a sense of injustice and/or insecurity among some many millions at some level. 

Zak, I do think you're correct when you gather that lots of people have a certain level of sympathy toward the few who do go and blow things up.  We could say much the same about the Christian right in American politics, speaking generally.  People waving signs about "God sent the killer" to the abortion clinic, etc.  In both cases, relatively few violent actors.  Likewise: a minority among conservatives staving off gay marriage by insisting on hateful hyper-manliness and towing out the same old claims about "weak" minorities and unrealistic pedophile drama.   

As for embassy attacks.  It only takes one good crowd of highly motivated people to stone, etc. a building on their own turf.  What is required is for them to feel its their turf (very important), and that they demand for apparently unfair guests to take notice they've done something locally explosive (this is also for local consumption, not entirely a message to the embassy).  Meanwhile: Western police forces have variously smacked, tear gassed, or incarcerated and harassed many protestors at things like the Republican National Convention and G-8 summits.  Many of these people are non-violent, but the police claim they must do it for the protection of property and order.  The people's taxes can pay for illegal actions of the police later.  Now, who's to say "democracy in the streets" is more just when a culture expects only the police forces to show anger?  Show me that popular protests in the streets of the Middle East, particularly the ones with fires and violence (not just the right-wing orchestrated burning of American flags), are all about groundswells of support for Al Qaeda, etc.  I suspect they have more to do with gross inequalities.  My bet is the really violent ones have generally met with brutal state responses: gas, guns, and cages.

Yes, there is more generalized upset and antipathy toward the US/West from many people in states grossly disrupted by social impacts of "modernity" aka shock exposure to Western business (Saudi Arabia).  Or those where the US has sponsored tyrants (Iran) or thrown fuel on the fire of regional wars (Afghanistan) for decades.  Not to mention the legacy of colonialism (say, Algeria) or foreign military aid for an evolving occupation (Palestine). 

Despite all that, I don't see clear evidence that so many people are really calling for outright violence.  It seems to me you're actually concerned about antipathy - or yes, in some cases, sympathy - toward people whose violence is often for symbolic ends.  That is not the same picture as so many people demanding violence or even believing it's useful or desirable.  I also don't see a clear overlap between your millions of people and any platform to forcefully convert the West.  Quite a few could say, "Your policies killed my father [insert appropriate figure(s) here]" or have clearly said "Get your troops/paws off my country/women."  Sometimes frustrating, yes, but hardly what you suggest.

As far as people feeling upset or antipathy and expressing that in what are culturally strong ways: Fires and scuffles in the streets over there...  Much the same as calls for murder over here.  And often, for wholesale treatment of little-known foreign regimes as "Nazis."  They're both displays for internal and insider politics, too.  They don't reflect what most of the speakers actually would do themselves.  These outpourings can hint at what is bothering people about their world, though.  If you take some quiet time to look at the history of all the screaming.  If you assume most people or too many people are screaming for that, then you'll miss it.  And then, it's easy to issue blank checks for more of those policies that make still more people justly upset, and a few mad.

Just one book review from 1999, but much of it seems pertinent.  Fewer Christian group bombings, perhaps.  But all the same sort of calling for death and mayhem.  The same as the few on the far end of the Islamic spectrum, that is.  It is not all the Christians nor all the Muslims, nor most as far as I can tell.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_2_60/ai_55208526/

[HairyHeretic]

The percentage of Muslim to Christian terrorists on the scale of Al'qadaa isn;t the same. There are far more terrorists than Christians.

I'll presume that you mean more muslim terrorists than christian ones. As to that, I don't know. The fact that most christian terrorists seem to be active along nationalist rather than religious lines doesn't mean that they don't exist though.

The muslims are much more violent too. Whe was the last time you heard of a Christian group taking credit for a abombing?

I spent 20 years growing up in Northern Ireland. I've heard christian terrorists taking credit for bombings on a weekly basis. And for shootings. For punishment beatings that left people crippled.

Of one making calls for it's followers to mnurder and kill the infidel? Of calls for holy war?  I haven't and if there were, you8 can bet the US news would pick up on that real quick.

I've mentioned the National Liberation Front of Tripura before. They're a terrorist group in India whose stated aim is for an independent Christian homeland. Does that constitute holy war to you?

There are too many violent acts of the NLFT to list but most involve kidnappings, extortion, mass murders, rapes, bombings and forced gunpoint conversions. NLFT seeks to severe all ties to the indigenous culture and religion of the state. Their militants have been known to shut down Hindu and Buddhist orphanages, hospitals, temples and schools as well as a establishing a ban on Hindi movies. In essence, they are the Christian equivalent of the Taliban. One attack of the many attacks that the population of Tripura has suffered under since 1989 is described below:

On December 4th, 2000, Christians converts under the direction of Missionaries, desecrated an ashram (Hindu religious retreat) set up by murdered Hindu leader Shanti Kumar Tripura. . They desecrated Hindu idols and destroyed photos of the slain religious leader revered by both Hindu tribals and Bengalis. The Christian converts also raped two female devotees and brutally attacked two men who had come to the ashram for puja (religious rituals).

The next day, Christian converts brutally desecrated another ashram at Jirania Khola and forced the inmates to stop all Hindu rituals and practices at gunpoint. A group of seven armed converted Christian terrorists barged into the ashram and threatened the 150 Hindus with dire consequences if they continued to perform Hindu rites at the ashram. The terrorists fled only after a large group of locals rushed to the ashram.

Due to threats by violent Missionaries and their Christian converts, altogether 11 ashrams, schools and orphanages set up by the murdered Hindu leader in various parts of the state have been forcibly closed down by the Christian fundamentalist terrorist organization known as “National Liberation Front of Tripura” (NLFT).

Sounds like it to me.

True. They don't.  I don't think any religious law should be folllowed. In either civil or secular courts of law. Religion has no place in setting up the laws of a government since not everyone follows the same religion.

It may surprise you, but I agree. The law should treat everyone equally.

If it is done legally, I have less of a problem in that.  Please check with some muslims if you can. I do not know any where I live. Please ask them if it says that, in a literal sense. Ie, what a Taliban, Terrorist/radical would believe.

I can only ask them what they believe. They might be able to guess how a radical would interpret things, but there's no gaurantee that they would know.

 

So? The fact that 700 years ago the Christian kingdoms were doing that has nothing to do with right now. Or does religion have a grace period for violent actions?

'From it's founding until it reaches about 1700 years of age, this (insert religion) is expected and can follow a path of violence to further it's goals.'

You are the one who brought up the point that christianity had outgrown its violent past, not me. I simply pointed out that at a similar point in its development, christianity was quite happily slaughtering all round it.

I know Chrisitanity did some brutal things in it's past. The First Crusade was one of the worst. Along with the Inquisition and the Spanish conquest of Central/South america. Thankfully that time is past and I hope it never comes again. Islam is NOT past that point. Why should they be given a pass because   when Christianity was1400 years of age, it was doing close to the same thing?

Why should a religion be blanket denigrated for the behaviour of those who would twist its beliefs to suit their own agenda?

Those who commit acts of terror should be brought to justice and punished for it. Those who bomb, and murder, and attempt to force their beliefs onto others through intimidation and violence should be dealt with under the law, and face justice for their activities.

But I do not believe that any group ... religious, ethnic, political, or whatever ... should be demonised for the activities of a handfull.