^

Quote :

"I stand corrected with respect to 'overwhelming force' being a component of the Powell Doctrine, though at this point we're nowhere near satisifying all other components of either Doctrine. Also, you have still failed to state what 'overwhelming force' means to you (not Colin Powell) in the context of North Korea."

A Tanzarian

Don't get mad at me because you got pwned. Yes, you were wrong about the Powell Doctrine--and you're probably one of the ones who made fun of Sarah Palin for not properly articulating the so-called Bush Doctrine when questioned about it (and you also probably ignored the fact that Charlie Gibson himself got it wrong). I set a trap and you fell right into it--be more careful next time.

And you're wrong again concerning my definition of overwhelming force:

Quote :

"For the purposes of this exchange, however, let's just say that it's in line with applicable aspects of the Weinberger Doctrine and the Powell Doctrine."

hooksaw

Quote :

"Your other articles are still largely about things North Korea could be doing or might be doing (see Iraq for an example of what happens when you go to war based on what others could be or might be doing)."

A Tanzarian

Wrong again! From the Obama administration:

Quote :

"[George] STEPHANOPOULOS: With North Korea, it seems like nothing has worked. Engagement doesn't work; isolation doesn't work. They keep on pursuing their nuclear ambitions. And -- and the problem with North Korea is that they've tried to sell every single weapon they've ever made. [Secretary of State Hillary] CLINTON: Right."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/Story?id=7775502&page=2

George Stephanopoulos stated, ". . .North Korea. . .[has] tried to sell every single weapon they've ever made." And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replied, "Right." Which part of this specific exchange excludes nuclear weapons?

In any event, it appears that you're prepared to wait until North Korea sells a nuclear weapon and/or its technology to a terrorist state and/or terrorists and I am not. My position seems much more reasonable, and I would not take any options off the table to prevent a rogue nation from holding the rest of us hostage.

[Edited on June 11, 2009 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2009 4:52:10 PM

I'm not mad. Unlike you, I don't get a perverse pleasure out of ranting and raving at others.

As for the "you're probably one of those people" comment: aren't you a little old for that? Or is this one of those comments where you assume things about other people?

"For the purposes of this exchange, however, let's just say that it's in line with applicable aspects of the Weinberger Doctrine and the Powell Doctrine" is not a definition of overwhelming force. In your infinite, smug, and condescending sagaciousness, I'm sure you're aware that 'overwhelming' is a relative term, dependent upon what is being overwhelmed. With respect to North Korea, what constitutes overwhelming force?

The key word in your news quote is 'tried'.

Quote :

"In any event, it appears that you're prepared to wait until North Korea sells a nuclear weapon and/or its technology to a terrorist state and/or terrorists"

Not true at all.

6/11/2009 6:22:49 PM

^ About the last part, okay, so what are you prepared to do?

6/11/2009 6:25:34 PM

With respect to North Korea, what constitutes overwhelming force?

6/11/2009 6:28:53 PM

^ I've answered that question. Please stop trolling/showing your ignorance and answer my straightforward question.

6/11/2009 6:37:46 PM

No, you haven't answered my question. With respect to North Korea, what is overwhelming force? Cap guns? Abrams? MOABs? Nuclear weapons? What?

Quote :

"so what are you prepared to do?"

Do about what?

[Edited on June 11, 2009 at 6:45 PM. Reason : ]

6/11/2009 6:44:26 PM

^ This has grown tedious. You're just playing games.

6/11/2009 8:34:23 PM

You're asking broad, unspecific, leading questions so that you can play "Gotcha!", but I'm the one playing games.

Got it.

6/11/2009 10:20:23 PM

The nervous Nellies wring their hands and knit their brows, but in the meantime. . .

SKorea braces for 3rd nuclear test by North Korea - 1 hour ago

Quote :

"SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea was bracing for a possible third nuclear test by the North, which a U.S. official said was likely despite looming U.N. sanctions on the communist state for its previous test in May."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iURO8fOyWVOA0ytFlaAGuC9F7R9wD98P0IE80

Quote :

"What's more, Pyongyang's next nuclear detonation is but one of four planned actions the Central Intelligence Agency has learned, through sources inside North Korea, that the regime of Kim Jong-Il intends to take -- but not announce -- once the Security Council resolution is officially passed, likely on Friday. The other three actions include the reprocessing of all of the North's spent plutonium fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium; a major escalation in the North's uranium-enrichment program; and the launching of another Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile from the Yunsong military complex on the west coast of North Korea. The North last launched a Taepodong-2 on April 5; it conducted its second nuclear test in the last three years on Memorial Day."

Quote :

"As well, where American intelligence officials on June 9 observed components for the long-range Musudan missile leaving the Wapo-ri installation area, they have now 'lost track of them,' FOX News has learned. 'We spotted the TELs [Transporter-Erector-Launchers] and then we lost track of them,' a source said. 'NGA lost track.' NGA refers to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a unit the Defense Department that provides imagery and geospatial information for military and civilian purposes. 'It's disturbing,' the source added."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/exclusive-north-korea-match-resolution-new-nuclear-test/

U.S. high-tech jets deployed to Japan amid tensions

Quote :

"KADENA May 30 (Reuters) - The first of 12 high-tech U.S. F-22 [Raptor] fighter jets landed on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa on Saturday, days after North Korea unnerved the region by detonating a nuclear device. The arrival of the top-of-the line aircraft at Kadena air force base comes after U.S. President Barack Obama reassured Prime Minister Taro Aso in a telephone conversation this week of Washington's commitment to the defence of its Asian ally. 'The deployment underscores the U.S. commitment to Japan as a vital regional partner and signals U.S. resolve to ensure stability and security throughout the Pacific region,' the U.S. Air Force said in a statement on Friday."

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39981920090530

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 5:15 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 5:07:12 AM

White House: US may confront ships near NKorea - 1 hour ago

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration said Friday it is prepared to confront ships believed to be carrying contraband materials to North Korea but will not try to forcibly board them, in accordance with new U.N. sanctions. White House officials said they expect North Korea to act 'irresponsibly' to the sanctions, imposed Friday by the U.N. Security Council in response to the communist nation's recent nuclear tests. The sanctions include expanding an arms embargo and authorizing searches of ships thought to be carrying banned items to North Korea, such as materials that could be used in nuclear weapons development."

Quote :

"Rice also said the United States will 'ramp up and intensify' its efforts to find out about suspect ships. She would not discuss any new deployment of U.S. military resources to do so, however. 'I'm not going to get into the disposition of our military assets,' she said. 'Suffice it to say that we'll take what steps are necessary, and we have the ability to do so.'"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYphBjQpSQaF-1iOItH4PhHufOGwD98PFO300

Fears North Korea Will Share Nuclear Technology

Quote :

"David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, talks with David Greene about how the world is responding to the test. Sanger says there are concerns that North Korea will ship nuclear technology around the world."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104648078

1. Why didn't Ambassador Rice define "ramp up and intensify" for A Tanzarian? What an outrage!

2. If North Korea's nuclear proliferation is all just made up hooey, why is Obama "warmongering"?

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : PS: ]

6/12/2009 10:26:57 PM

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090614/D98QDSOO0.html

NKorea warns of nuclear war amid rising tensions

Quote :

"On Saturday, North Korea's Foreign Ministry threatened war on any country that dared to stop its ships on the high seas under the new sanctions approved by the U.N. Security Council on Friday as punishment for the North's latest nuclear test. ... North Korea said more than one-third of 8,000 spent fuel rods in its possession has been reprocessed and all the plutonium extracted would be used to make atomic bombs. The country could harvest 13-18 pounds (6-8 kilograms) of plutonium - enough to make at least one nuclear bomb - if all the rods are reprocessed. In addition, North Korea is believed to have enough plutonium for at least half a dozen atomic bombs. North Korea says its nuclear program is a deterrent against the U.S., which it routinely accuses of plotting to topple its regime. Washington, which has 28,500 troops in South Korea, has repeatedly said it has no such intention."

6/14/2009 1:28:47 PM

Quote :

"2. If North Korea's nuclear proliferation is all just made up hooey, why is Obama "warmongering"? "

Why do you beat your wife?

6/14/2009 1:32:11 PM

This is seriously turning into one hell of a way to discourage interference in a major succession of political power.

Also, do we actually have a clear picture of how many fuel rods and how much plutonium NK actually has and has and/or can weaponize, or are all our estimates just a shot in the dark? That the numbers vary so much between articles (for estimates on the # of nuclear bombs that could be created) makes me think otherwise.

6/14/2009 3:35:51 PM

^ I don't think the exact number is really all that relevant.

The real question I'd ask is if they would really use their weapons, on who, and it what circumstances.

I personally don't see them actually using them, because it would mean the certain end of their regime. Kim Jong is nuts, but he seems to have been obsessive about maintaining his power, something I don't think his insanity will let him lose.

The main things we should be focusing on now are making sure real terrorists don't get their hands on nukes, and finding a way to bring an end to Kim Jong's rule sooner rather than waiting for him to die.

6/14/2009 3:46:59 PM

^ Well, the reason I ask is because back in the bush administration days I heard the 6-8 figure thrown out as well. Since then they've supposedly had 2 nuke tests. So does that mean they only have enough for 4-6 nukes, now? How many more nuclear tests will they have to carry out in order to miniaturize the warhead enough to put it on a missile? If they don't have a steady supply of plutonium, it's very plausible that they'll just run out of the stuff and become a non-threat once again (though they have the technology to create more bombs in the future), or perhaps they'll have a few bombs that are too big to drop via anything besides a large bomber (and SK has more than enough defenses against such aircraft, given that all NK will have are some old soviet pieces of crap).

6/14/2009 9:29:53 PM

Bill Richardson said on ABC's World News on Sunday evening, and I'm paraphrasing, that he'd been doing this (diplomacy) for a long time and he had never seen North Korea act the way that it is. He added, "Something's going on."

As soon as I can find the text or video, I'll post it.

6/15/2009 5:04:48 PM

wait, is this Bill Richardson, or his evil twin with the goatee?

6/15/2009 5:47:19 PM

I bet North Korea does something stupid and outlandish in the next weeks since noone is paying them any attention, they are like a small child with ballistic missiles, nuclear material and an army.

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 12:19 AM. Reason : .]

6/16/2009 12:15:27 AM

^ I agree.

6/16/2009 12:29:29 AM

One can only hope.

6/16/2009 12:34:29 AM

^ Um. . .what?

6/16/2009 12:43:25 AM

I hope they do something stupid and outlandish. And act like a baby that wants attn.

Anyways, [i]what[/]?

6/16/2009 12:45:00 AM

Quote :

"and SK has more than enough defenses against such aircraft, given that all NK will have are some old soviet pieces of crap"

While most of their air force is outdated soviet crap (and chinese manufactured copies of outdated soviet crap), they do have a few examples of modern aircraft in their inventory, though in small numbers.

I assumed that this applied to their bomber fleet as well and that they might have a few modern heavy bombers that could deliver a large bomb, but after further research HOLY SHIT - their entire bomber fleet is 80 Il-28s?! The Il-28 was basically a stop-gap created at the outset of the Cold War by strapping jets onto a typical WWII medium bomber. Aside from NK, almost all of the existing ones in service are in sub-Saharan Africa.

6/16/2009 12:53:21 AM

^ Hahhahaha. Oh man, OK, let's see what happens when those go up against 12 of these:



[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 12:59 AM. Reason : Which were recently deployed in Japan, I believe.]

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 1:00 AM. Reason : \/ OHHHHHHHH! Jinx. Nice timing.]

6/16/2009 12:58:46 AM

^ And a dozen or more F-22 Raptors--among many other weapons and platforms in and around the region--are sitting in Japan waiting on the North Koreans to do something batshit.



[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ^ OH, SHIT! Same thought! ]

6/16/2009 12:58:53 AM

Jesus we even got pics that were roughly in the same position/setting. Haha...

Yeah, seriously though, SK's air force could wipe out NK's air force without any issue once they figured out what was going on. Doesn't rule out them being nuked by a truck or by train, but hey!

6/16/2009 1:01:06 AM

Have those ever actually been tested in real battle yet?

6/16/2009 1:01:56 AM

^ Google that shit, dude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdRVbr1OfKc

6/16/2009 1:08:22 AM

Sheesh...sorry! I was just saying if they havent been battle tested now would be a good time if NK does something stupid.

6/16/2009 1:33:08 AM

Quote :

"let's see what happens when those go up against 12 of these"

I mulled it over briefly and realized that the only real threat would be an attack en masse by all 80 aircraft (though I'm sure much fewer are actually airworthy). Even then, should 12 F-22's expend all missiles and be forced to duke it out with guns against defensive fire from the Il-28s, it comes down to state of the art computer fire control versus a cold North Korean in a leather skull cap with a machine gun sitting in the back of the plane with a crosshair (think Harry Connick Jr in Memphis Belle).

6/16/2009 2:57:57 AM

^ Well, your post reminded me of a TV show I saw in which it was described how A-1 Skyraiders (prop planes) shot down two MiG jet fighters in Vietnam:

http://tinyurl.com/m4vyox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcOvMQ17-i4

So, I guess it matters about who's piloting the aircraft. But I realize that the F-22s are far superior to the Vietnam-era MiGs.

6/16/2009 9:36:21 AM

fyi. nk might shoot an icbm to hawaii in early july. yawn. stay tuned.

links for anyone curious

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527020,00.html
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090618/155282803.html
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/06/17/north-korea-may-launch-missile-toward-hawaii-in-july/
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090617/NEWS08/906170374/Hawai+i+warned+of+missile+threat

Or here for all: http://news.google.com/news?q=North+Korea+Missile+Hawaii&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=k1B&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=vuY5Svv7OsGMtgeV6bTiDA&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title

[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 3:08 AM. Reason : .]

6/18/2009 3:07:14 AM

so, would NK shooting a missile at Hawaii be enough for you panty-twisters to advocate action?

6/18/2009 8:16:35 AM

If you were going to shoot a missile with the actual intention of hitting something, would you warn that something two weeks in advance?

This is grandstanding, and not very good grandstanding at that.

6/18/2009 9:22:16 AM

The leadership of North Korea has no fear of Obama. Why should they?

6/18/2009 12:41:43 PM

^^ I'm not suggesting they are going to try and hit hawaii. Aiming in the vicinity is just as much of a provocation as actually targeting it. At least it is in my book.

6/18/2009 7:19:58 PM

I'm not sure if this is breaking or old, but I found it relevant:

Quote :

"A missile defense system yet to be tested in battle could be thrust to the forefront to protect US soil amid concerns that North Korea may be preparing a missile strike that could hit Hawaii."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0620/p02s07-usmi.html

6/20/2009 6:29:49 PM

Quote :

"The leadership of North Korea has no fear of Obama. Why should they?"

He's Commander in Chief of the big stick, as per the policy of "speak softly and carry a big stick".
Not to say that our current administration is actually following said policy right now, but the "carry a big stick" part is what's important in answering your question.

Though Kim isn't a normal case by any stretch. He's already a nutjob, but it seems like being closer to death (and knowing it) is pushing him further over that edge. He appears to be displaying fear of death, but besides that, I can't tell if someone as crazy as he is even has much concept of fear.

[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 2:06 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2009 1:44:55 AM

Obama: US ready for any threat from North Korea

Quote :

"'This administration — and our military is fully prepared for any contingencies,' Obama said during an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith."

Quote :

"'What we're not going to do is to reward belligerence and provocation in the way that's been done in the past,' [Obama] said."

I just wanted to point out that if the previous president had made statements such as these, many of you would have flown in here howling, "WARMONGER!" But since nobody--including the North Koreans--believes that Obama is going to do much of anything, I guess nobody really cares. Obama has been passive and timid on foreign policy, to say the least.

BTW, here's North Korea's response:

Quote :

"North Korea's main newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said Monday it was 'nonsense' to say the country was threatening the United States. The paper warned that Pyongyang was prepared to strike back if attacked. 'As long as our country has become a proud nuclear power, the U.S. should take a correct look at whom it is dealing with,' the paper said. 'It would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to think it can remain unhurt if it ignites the fuse of war on the Korean peninsula.' The South Korean news network YTN reported Sunday that a U.S. Navy destroyer was tailing a North Korean ship, the Kang Nam, suspected of carrying illicit weapons toward Myanmar."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYphBjQpSQaF-1iOItH4PhHufOGwD98VMSN80

6/22/2009 6:51:24 PM

Holy shit, you're a tool.

Do you have any idea how predictable your criticisms are? How does it feel to be such an insufferable broken record? Could you try formulating an independent thought that doesn't revolve around lame, hollow criticisms of Obama and other Dems?

6/22/2009 8:01:06 PM

How much longer is Kim expected to live? Can't we just play his games for a few more years?

6/22/2009 10:01:48 PM

^^ Now that you've called me some version of a poopyhead, could you address the points I made in the post?

1. Would many here not have called Bush a warmonger or some such had he made the type of statements Obama did?

2. Is Obama going to do anything about North Korea or not?

3. Are you claiming that Obama has not been "passive and timid on foreign policy," as I indicated?

4. Have the actions of North Korea been more provocative in five months of Obama than they were in eight years of Bush?

Quote :

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama. . . ."

--Joe "Rhetorical Flourishes" Biden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpiNfuG8YY8

Biden was finally right about something!

6/23/2009 2:41:26 AM

Happy 4th of July!!

Looks like NK brought the fireworks.


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/nkorea.missiles/index.html

7/4/2009 12:49:03 AM

they fired off the ballistic missile equivalent of a bottle rocket. attention whores

7/4/2009 1:03:30 AM

7/4/2009 3:18:48 AM

Quote :

"Would many here not have called Bush a warmonger or some such had he made the type of statements Obama did? "

There's a long record of people criticizing Bush for ignoring Nk to focus on Iraq, when it has always been clear that Iraq was far less of a threat than NK.

Quote :

"Are you claiming that Obama has not been "passive and timid on foreign policy," as I indicated? "

You could argue passive (which is not inherently a bad or good thing), but "timid" is a nonsensical criticism. How would you describe the past 8 years of our foreign policy? Because whatever it was clearly didn't hinder any of NK's progress (although i'm sure they were very hurt that we called them the axis of evil), did it?


[Edited on July 4, 2009 at 3:42 AM. Reason : http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=437641&page=2#9417683]

[Edited on July 4, 2009 at 3:43 AM. Reason : http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=538987&page=1#12154228]

[Edited on July 4, 2009 at 3:45 AM. Reason : ]

7/4/2009 3:35:43 AM

i'm not trying to make any point with this statement, but how much of a threat is NK really? their military technology is dated and in poor condition, they have numbers but they are not very mobile. do we mean threat to South Korea?

of course we cannot allow them to become a nuclear power, but their missiles are immobile and highly visible. it would seem that if it came to it we could neutralize the threat easily.

7/4/2009 9:43:58 AM

Anyone who says North Korea is not a real threat to South Korea really just needs to take a couple steps back from this thread.

7/4/2009 11:19:03 AM

i thought it was clear that i was asking about a threat to the us, in fact i asked if they meant threat to south korea. i think south korea should take lead when it comes to north korea and a lot of what people have criticized as inaction (in this administration and the last) was because of the desires of south korea.

7/4/2009 4:34:30 PM

^ they are a threat to us... not our people or mainland, I wouldn't say, but they can easily destabilize oil prices, and can force us to have to use our military power to control them.

Not to mention that it's just plain despicable how subjugated their people are, and we should be working, whether subtly or openly, to give them a chance.

And as the most powerful country around, the onus is on us to prevent a country like NK from using a nuclear weapon. Especially when they scape-goat us too as the cause of their problems, we can't let them intimidate other countries, because we'd get blamed for that.

[Edited on July 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ]

7/4/2009 4:51:58 PM