Readers’ Responses to Our Question (72)

One isn't necessarily born with courage, but one is born with potential.
Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency.
adipex dangers
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Not that your child or you are having a great time with your Webkinz world it is time to explore the latest in information. Webkinz has so much to offer in the way of activities, recipes, items for sale both in reality and in virtual worlds that you can't possibly keep track of everything, and what is released as new. There are 15 new Webkinz being released in the next year as well as other new items. The Webkinz Insider is your gateway to finding out what is new, chatting away on a forum and just enjoying the life of a virtual pet.

Breaking News on the Webkinz Insider is going to change as new things come to light. The home page of the Webkinz Insider is going to be the place to start regarding the Insider. You will learn about any new trading cards, how to get them, and why they are useful from the Webkinz Insider. You can also learn how to activate Webkinz stationary in the code shop. There is so much breaking news regarding the Webkinz in the Webkinz Insider online you could stay on the home page for hours catching up when you are new. For instance there is news regarding new recipes, as well as what Webkinz Animals have been retired. To keep you interested and make things new as you cruise along in the virtual world they like to offer new items and take away some of the old. But, don't worry if you already have this Webkinz creature that has been retired you are safe in your virtual world as well as at home with your plush.

The Webkinz Insider is even going to tell you when a new member joins the community. Don't you like to know that all pets are adopted, well with the Webkinz Insider you will learn when a pet that has been lost is found, and offered a great new home. You will also learn about Figurines on the Webkinz insider. Did you know that there are prizes award during contests to the online family members of Webkinz. This means you could adopt one of your favorite figurines to have at home or win one in a competition.

The Webkinz Insider is set up as a forum where parents and children can go to post information as well as ask questions. You will find that the information on the Webkinz Insider is kept up to date as well as very informative.


Thanks
Cheap Webkinz
Buy Webkinz Cheap
http://www.buy-cheap-webkinz.com
Hannah Montana MySpace Layouts

Follow your dreams, you can reach your goals. notem6715

Your site is amaizing. Can I share some resources with you? notem6715

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

I think the US should use the Taepong2 missile launch as a test for our SDI. In this case we would bear only 50% of the cost of the test with the NOrth Koreans footing the other.
Unless, of course, if the missile is tested towards China or Russia; in that case, let their SDI handle it.
A Taepong launched towards us or an ally should be shot down mid-flight or as soon as possible.

Let em test all they want; nations have been test firing missles for decades. It's more fodder for another Bush "preventative war."

I swear, that idiot is going to cast the world in flames before his term is done. I just hope and pray that we can survive GW Bush for a couple of more years.

Look, you do not fire unless your fired upon. It is that simple.
So no, I don't think it is advisable to carry out a strike.

The consequences of such a strike would not be good for America.

If they launch a missle at LA or Seattle then we are justified in our reaction.

It is that simple.

To RobS you wrote the following:
_____________________________________________________________________
RobS

I worked on MinuteMan III ICBM's when I was in the service. Truth be told with all the old but proven complicated technology and years of weather elements affecting this missile and its many parts in the ground we always wondered how many would even make it out of the hole when fired. So I say let them test and we should test our new system at the same time. I bet both would be collosal failure and the world would see how stupid this thing really is. Bush will lose face and US prestige either way. Better to try to shoot it down and fail over international airspace. If our missile hits it we will look great to the world, else no one will care in a week.

_____________________________________________________________________
Was wondering if you could elaborate further. Meaning, are you saying that MM III is unreliable, even though it is a solid fuel rocket, or do you mean GMD missles are unreliable?

Thanks

Im American living in china, the chinese people are loving and caring people they do not want any-war with anyone, In fact in the last 2000 years they have not started any wars; the last 65 years they whated to talk to the Japaneese and the U.S. was talking to the Japaneese to. Today the japaneese said they did nothing wrong, everyone is so mad at Bush Adminstration, WHY.. they was not around when Clinton Adminstration knew about the Terrorism going to happen in the world and american they did nothing, should we wait like at Pearl Harbor then alot of american die then, the Clinton Adminstration waited to long then 911 happen more american die, and the Terrorism did not think Bush would not do anyting but they were wrong, and then it took a real man to sand up and say no more, no more american die by setting and doing nothing, if we have to die we most fight Terrorism anywhere we can first. I guss we can wait for North Korea, Iran to do someting maybe more american will maybe we should take the fight to them this time and not wait for more american die, if you think we should stop fight terrorism maybe you should go live with them then, American does not like terrorism and China does not like terrorism, I see someone wrote: American should do to others what she would like others do for her,, she did when the Terroris came to New York 911 then american came to them, remember before 911 Bush Adminstration was not at war with anyone, GOD BLESS A AMERICAN, but not terrorism. GOD BLESS THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, GOD BLESS OUR CHILDEN IN THE WORLD, GOD BLESS THE CHILDEN THAT DIE IN 911.

I'm afraid if the US does that, then it should know that it will be sending a message to the whole world that anyone else anywhere has the right to do what he/she thinks is right.This includes shooting down US missiles.

I wonder what the US would do if China was to shoot down a US missile.

With great power comes great responsibilities and Powerful nations need to be very wise.

America should do to others what she would like others do for her.

The money wasted in shooting down the missiles could very well be used to feed thousands of people in Darfur.

Well, here we are a week later talking about the possibility of launch
of a supposedly (corrosive) liquid-fueled missile and the radar shows
clear skies over the Pacific. No fumes form venting of super-cooled
fuel has been observed from sat images of the "bird" on the pad, which
is evident to anyone that has watched the launching of a liquid-fueled
vehicle. No troop movements or "research" ship movements have been recorded and no ELINT or SIGINT recordings have been made by the RC-135's circling off the coast. No "ALERT" or warning messages have been broadcast to U.S. forces on Guam or in the Pacific theater.

Thank You all for your participation in the hue and cry over the ex-SECDEF's opinion piece, but there will NOT be a launch today or anytime soon, so your concerns, while appreciated, are all for naught.

Someone earlier posted the notion that the ACTUAL matter of concern
is the response of the North Koreans to an interception of their missile. They opined that the South Koreans would be instantly open to a retaliatory move. Given the short distance to Seoul, the matter would be militarily concluded before any outside response (U.S. or Japanese) could occur. If the North decided to use nuclear weapons (which may not be fitted to their ICBM's, but ARE deployable from the air or with artillery!), it is fair to say that their will NOT be any "Inchon landings" by U.S. forces to retake the newly irradiated territory. I would not doubt that several inter-pact "agreements" with the North Korean regime and, say, Pakistan and Iran would also go into effect, thous altering the stability of the WORLD security and economic situation.

So, from any angle (science, logical, military, economic, visible and Intel indications) it appears we are really at an end to this particular discussion, wouldn't you agree?

I worked on MinuteMan III ICBM's when I was in the service. Truth be told with all the old but proven complicated technology and years of weather elements affecting this missile and its many parts in the ground we always wondered how many would even make it out of the hole when fired. So I say let them test and we should test our new system at the same time. I bet both would be collosal failure and the world would see how stupid this thing really is. Bush will lose face and US prestige either way. Better to try to shoot it down and fail over international airspace. If our missile hits it we will look great to the world, else no one will care in a week.

Are we living on the same planet? Bomb N Korea? Bomb Iran? What next? Bomb the world, because they don't take Uncle Sam's dictates?

This is not about freedom and democracy. It about maintaining and extending America's global hegemony. And, sadly, you guys seem to just suck up the neocon juice without question.

This is George Orwell's 1984 brough to pitiful life. Why is that. Ar some people too lazy to think for themselves? Please go isolationist and save us any more mass murders in the name of freedom and democracy.

http://www.ebeefs.com

Are we living on the same planet? Bomb N Korea? Bomb Iran? What next? Bomb the world, because they don't take Uncle Sam's dictates?

This is not about freedom and democracy. It about maintaining and extending America's global hegemony. And, sadly, you guys seem to just suck up the neocon juice without question.

This is George Orwell's 1984 brough to pitiful life. Why is that. Ar some people too lazy to think for themselves? Please go isolationist and save us any more mass murders in the name of freedom and democracy.

http://www.ebeefs.com

I think blowing up North Korea missile is probably worth while - all the negative fallout is blown out of proportion. I doubt NK will want a war with South Korea because that would mean collapse of its tyrannical regime. But I wonder if Bush admin can manage the fallout especially if NK wants to cross DMZ.

If US could live with thousands of Soviet missiles (and with few current Chinese ones) pointed at it, how would a few from NK be cause for worry?

It surprises me how many comments support the tyrannical regime. Any action that keeps the tyrants in Pyongyang on the edge of their seats is worth while. Thanks for Messers Perry and Carter for suggesting it.

It seems Clintonís people are hawks and Bushís people of doves now.

I worked on MinuteMan III ICBM's when I was in the service. Truth be told with all the technology and weather elements affecting this missile and its parts in the ground we always wondered how many would even make it out of the hole when fired. So I say let them test and we should test our new system at the same time. I bet both would be collosel failures and the world would see how stupid this thing really is.

Are we living on the same planet? On the right side of sanity? What is it with some Americans? We need to get the most reputable social psychologists and psychiatrists on the case. I am dead serious!

"Should we bomb North Korea? Should we bomb Iran?" We are not talking about inanimate countries, objects, here. We're talking living, breathing people here, hundreds of thousands of them. You want another mass murder to happen, a la Iraq?

And don't tell me about surgical strikes, either. If Iraq was surgical - resulting in at least 100,000 dead from the "war" - just imagine what it would have been like otherwise.

What gives you the right to mass-kill at will, behind the transparent figleaf of freedom and democracy? You know the maintenance of worldwide American hegemony and the survival of the empire depends on subjugating the rest of the world by any means necessary, so you go along with whatever your leaders tell you, even when you know it's patently not true. It's your alibi.

This is very depressing. It's like George Orwell's 1984 made real. America does not own the world. Operate as equal partners in this world of ours, or go isolationist - as you,ve threatened to do on several ocassions. No more mass murders. Please?!

http://www.eBeefs.com

I am not going to argue strike or no strike, but one thing the media here misses completely: North Korea in its present form exists ONLY because China wants it to. It is a puppet-buffer state for China vs. the US and Japan - and "the Left" in the West should understand China is 100% responsible for the misery that takes place there. On the other hand, for that reason, North Korea will never test a nuclear weapon. China does not want a nuclear-armed state on their border - they have more to lose than we do. In fact, evidence indicates the Chinese are pretty fed up with their agents in North Korea, the Kim regime. Missile tests, etc... are probably a poke in the eye to Kim's bosses in Beijing as the Western Press tells us they are to the Japanese and Americans.

I say why not bomb every country that disagrees with this administration. As a veteran of the Korean conflict, I can assure you that bombing North Korea missile launching pad or their missile in flight will be looked upon as an act of war by the North Koreans, then look out troops in the Korean DMZ, Seoul and possible Toyko.

What a joke! Has anyone considered what hapens when a neclear missle - in flight or on the ground - will do if bombed?

Goodbye.

I am tired of hearing about North Korea, we should treat them the same way Fairfax County Police treat somebody that bets on football, we should just waste them. Get rid of them, then deny we ever did it. And, if actually caught, apologize and tell the world we were tired from deer hunting and that it was an accident and that we did not mean to squeeze the trigger.

I think we should buy the missile, and then continue paying the North Koreans each year they do not make another one. Think of it as a kind of nuclear soil bank. I bet we would end up saving money on the deal, and I'm sure that some of the payment would eventually trickle down to the starving North Korean people.

Wonderful idea! I own stock in a gold mining company, an air strike against North Korea should boost its value astronomically!

This country probably has more nuclear weapons than the whole world put together. What makes us so righteous?

How many missles has the US tested in international airspace? Plenty. North Korea should have that same right. As for their nuke program they also have that right. We (US) have to look at our own backyard before comenting on another countries!

US right now is scattering its forces too much. South Korea has already passed the no return point and there is no point in creating another regional crisis. This may only complicate things and derail the ongoing process between South and North Korea. Clearly, there is a big concern that North Korea shares its technology with other axis of evil states such as Iran, but Iran and others can get the technology from China and Russia.

US should instead focus on war on terrorism and encourage the North Korea and South Korea to unify and to gradually remove North Korea from the axis of evil list. North Korea's threat will be contained if the Korean wall of mistrust is brought down. If by striking the missile, the US wants to test its own defence capability, it is another story but one should take into account what Clinton gained by striking Taliban in Afghanistan? Instead US should send Rice to play Piano or dance for the evil old man, like what Albright did
in 2000; or organize a Pink Floyd concert by Roger Waters in Korea. Try music diplomacy.

I believe a unilateral strike on North Korea would be a disaster. By the time the US is capable of moving any military strength into the area Seoul would be blown to bits by North Korean conventional weapons and I see no grounds for why they would not retaliateóthey have little to lose. Our ally and friend is South Korea and thus talking about what we ought to do without talking to them or mentioning them as many have done in this forum is arrogant and ignorant. South Korea must use its resources along with us and their neighbors to find convincing strength and resolve to deter North Korea. The United States is not in a position to wage a war with North Korea, just like we are not in a position to successfully wage war in Iraq. The cost of Iraq on the image of American might is a disaster. The image of standing for what is right, especially in terms of human rights, has been a successful icon, tragically the Bush administration has burned this image. The truth of the matter is Good Guys donít attack preemptively; they defend the higher moral cause against the forces of tyranny. It is that simple. Iraq no matter how stupid on moral issues has failed and in real terms has weakened the national security of the US while failing to weaken global terrorism. It has strengthened the position of both Iran and North Korea and it is this that is the issue. The war in Iraq concentrated power in one area when we are not in position to do this without the complete backing of the UN. We need that force to win backing for all ventures and to distribute the costs and manpower. When the UN is on board we have great resources at our disposal and we saw this in the first war with Iraq. The Presidentís Dad mustered the entire world to Kuwait and that combination of the US and UN ended Saddamís bid to widen his control on oil. The present Iraq war makes us incredibly weak to deal with true threats, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a real threat to global security. When we rebuilt Western Europe and Japan after WWII we reaped the rewards of a multi trillion dollar business arrangement which has served us all well. Without these partners we are weak. Thus whatever we do in North Korea demands that our partners are on board, in particular Japan. Our post WWII venture into Korea gave us a new friend and important ally, South Korea, a true economic power and a people who have shown the world keen technological capability and inventiveness. Who have through their great will and determination created something decent and respectableóa democracy that works. This is worth defending at all costs. While the Korean War gave us a good friend it gave us also a formidable enemy, and foe in North Korea. Still we canít do anything without the South Koreans. They are number one in all dialogues and it is dialogue we must achieve. To deal properly with North Korea demands the use of collective pressure, in particular, South Korea, Russia, China and Japan. Allied pressure where the common mutual interest is stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. To defeat North Korea demands time, and that time will come with the death of Kim Jong II. But this means one has worked deliberately and unyieldingly towards unification of the two nations. That would be the ultimate goal. A single and whole Korea is a respectable goal. Determent on the one hand means you carry big sticks, like the continual threat of attack but the carrot is unification, peace and the potential of prosperity for all Koreans. You donít fight Jong II, you appease him a little bit at a time (food and medicine) and ask him why donít you just give it up, look at South Korea, at its prosperity and look at your country. It is failing and you must change and we will help you, so join the club of nations, there is much to gain by doing so and no excuse for not doing so. That truth is a real carrot.

Perhaps the wisest course in this matter would be for the U.S. to tell North Korea, privately, through intermediaries such as Russia or China, that the missile in question will be destroyed if it isn't drained of fuel and put away. It isn't necessary or advantageous for the U.S. to openly threaten an attack. Such a threat might serve only to goad the unpredictable North Korean regime into a desparate act and would also strengthen the widespread view around the world that the U.S. is needlessly militaristic, even though our preemptive response could be justified on the basis of self-defense. Russia or China or some other configuration of interested parties could propose a suitable package of inducements for North Korea, such as food and energy aide guarantees. North Korea could then proclaim itself to be
a "partner in peace" while simultaneously gaining aide and keeping itself from being attacked. The U.S.has the opportunity here to
talk softly and carry a big stick.

What use is an expensive and technically dubious missile defense system against North Korean Special Forces who have already inflitrated the US and are capable of making 9/11 look like a kindergarten field trip?

It is my understanding that North Korea's missle is incable of carrying thier nuclear bomb as thier design is very primative and much to heavy especially for thier long range missile.
The worst that could happen is that there might be a fifty foot deep hole in Alaska some where. To me this is just more fear mongering by a corrupt and illegaly elected govt., getting ready to steal another election. They probably calculate a 5 point gain in the poll's for this criis or at least a distraction from thier ongoing criminal ineptitude.

Mario wrote:
=============================================
"The most troubling aspect of this NK issue is the vague similarity to the sutuation between USA and Imperial Japan prior to WWII."
=============================================

Yes, and I think it's by design, too.

If a country uses a "big stick" and repeatily provokes a dog with it, what does the dog do in the end? It'll eventually bite back, and then claim it's justified in retaliating (this is what's being done in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict). That type of gamemanship is not only wrong, in the future, it's the children who'll suffer from the errors of their parents.

North Korea is doing what it can to garner some wealth and status, since it's on the brink of collapse (with a million plus dead via starvation, it can't even afford to stay afloat, let alone keep people —even by force— into believing their political system). The strong man antics is how to stir the USA's attention, and get Japan especially to earmark monies toward them as appeasement (i.e., bribe money). They really have no intention of giving up the farm, just a couple of plots to gain a very nice cash crop (much like China has done).

Point to every nation involved is: how much will countries feed this game for money and status, before it'll be abused further? Will it now be the game any two-bit thug would pull?

Bombing and destroying North Korea won't fix that problem, since the disease is spreading to South America, Iran (and other Middle East countries on the $$$$$$$$$ take), China, and now North Korea.

When is enough, enough?

SandyK

As a retired Vice Admiral, I don't out-rank the two who made those comments. But I will offer this - bombing North Korea's missile site is simply a bad idea. Period.

For those who read Masha's thoughts, she makes some exellent points. The US is getting a bad reputation. We've stepped over the line too many times now.

Don't get me wrong...North Korea is certainly one of the most unpredictable nations I've had the pleasure to go toe to toe with. But they're all smoke and mirrors, and militarily worthless. Their Navy is inferior to even Iran's. Let's not get too worked up over a missile that will probably just blow up on the launch pad.

-mike

We have learned nothing from history. During the 1930's Japan was a world sea power with a feeling of percieved threat from her neighbors due to economic pressures from the Great Depression. She became an invader, an occupier of other soverign nations and threat to the entire world. Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike at the US due to Japan's felt need for self-preservation. Worldwide terrorism has lead the US to follow the path set by Japan of the 1930's. We can only hope we can reverse this path set by the Bush Adminstration before it's too late.

I am by far a voilent person.But after the many thousands of soldiers we lost in the vietnam war and this war in a country that dosen't appreciate anything that we try to do,I say lets drop the bomb like we did in the japaneese war and 20 years down the line help them to rebuild there country.

The U.S. rising to the bait of nations goaded as an "axis of evil" has a decidedly strangelovian tone. General Buck Turgidson reappears in these avatars of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption: Carter-Perry, Cheney, Perle and Suskind.

I would like to raise three points, and to offer a suggestion.

1. The "analysis" of Carter and Perry is, to my mind, strikingly similar to the "analysis" of the neocons prior to our invasion of Iraq. They considered all possibilities, and gave each the probabilistic weights that suited their preconceived ideas. They simply don't know the likelihood of any of the responses and to pretend that they do is dangerous in the extreme. In going to war, and sending a missile strike into another sovereign nation is an act of war, a country should decide whether they are willing to live with the worst possible outcome. What is the worst possible outcome?

2. North Korea already has missiles (tested, without preemptive cruise missiles) that can reach their neighbors and our allies. Do they also have nuclear weapons that they can launch? I don't know. Remember that fission bombs are much easier to make than fusion (hydrogen) bombs and are pretty effective. The Hiroshima bomb was the simplest fission bomb. It was a uranium bomb that doesn't require explosive lens technology. So, when we send a cruise missile, we should ask ourselves whether we would be willing to live with an attack, even nuclear, on South Korea or Japan. Would we like our allies to understand that we are willing to use them as a shield for our actions? I'm not claiming that this is probable. It's not the odds, it's the stakes.

3. Several responders (even the professional ones) as well as Carter and Perry discussed our ABM "capability." Please remember that this not a weapon, it's a joke. The decsion to field this was political not technical and not strategic. This system cannot reliably hit a missile when the system knows exactly when the missile was launched, and where it is going. I seriously doubt that the North Korean Governnment would give our Department of Defense a courtesy call with that information, although they might do simply to embarrass our ABM "capability." This system should never be mentioned in a serious discussion.

My suggestion is that before this administration starts throwing cruise missiles at the problem, they consider bilateral talks with a country that apparently has nuclear capability and that has medium range missile technology. We have done it with India, Pakistan, and Israel. Even though petulance is this administration's strong suit, it is not appropriate in this or many other situations.

Hostility only promotes more hostility. Pre-emptive war in Iraq has inflamed the Middle East. Pre-emptive efforts in Asia will do the same in Asia. History has proven that the only winners in any conflict are defense contractors and weapons makers. (Read Manchester's "Arms of Krupp.")
If half our dollars spent on weapons were spent on alternative energy applications and foreign aid, we could take our military bases from Saudi Arabia, deflate the central issue of Islamic terrorism, eliminate Iran's one economic bullet, and regain the moral high ground in the world's body politic. This would then give us the focus and world support to deal with North Korea as a central issue rather than a side issue.

There seems to be a moral relativism establishing itself in certain segments of society. The US spends much less of it's GDP on military spending than does North Korea. People accuse the US of war mongering and of spending to much on their military. People in the same breath say North Korea has no choice and must spend a large chunk of it's GDP in order to deter America. Well, maybe America is spending as much as it is because there are countries out there spending what they do. It's all very circular, and somewhere along the way you have to break out of this and analyze the facts. Fact 1: Kim Jong Il has absolute power in his country, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Fact 2: He spends a massive amount of his country's GDP on the military when he relies on international food shipments to keep his deprived population alive. Fact 3: The clinton administration offered him incentives to halt his nuclear program, he signed the deal and told the world he had halted. Almost 10 years later, he comes back to the table, tells the world he already has created a nuclear weapon, during the time he had supposedly frozen the program. Fact 4: There is a missile on one of his launch pads which is a multi-stage long-range missile which is people belive is capable of hitting the United States.

Taking those facts, let's rationally examine where they lead us. A dictator with absolute power, who is a self-confessed liar, who has the ability to create a nuclear explosion and who has a long-range missile fueld and ready for launch. Now, do we all remember what happened to Hitler, he commited suicide rather than be humiliated by capture, as he was at one point of the most powerful men on the planet. Other examples would be the rich industrialists who lost their fortunes during the great depression, alot of them put pistols in their mouths. The point of this is that people don't relinquish power, they don't want to return to normality or to be brought down from their pedastal. Does anybody dispute that if Kim Jong Il felt he was going to lose what he has, he would self-destruct to strike back at those who caused his humiliation? This line of reasoning circumvents the MAD principle which prevented nuclear war for so many years. Russia, the US, India, Pakistan, et al. all have systems that would need to be put in place to launch a nuke, channels of authority and such and such. In North Korea....Kim Jong Il decides when and where, with no need to justify. In effect, one person is a nuclear power, and everybody knows there is no accurate model to predit the behaviour of any one given human.

Where does this lead us? Action must be taken before Kim Jong Il acquires more power in his greedy little hands, he will continue to blackmail the planet and when he feels his power is becoming eroded, will stop at nothing to lash out at those responsible.

Why are we even having this conversation, we should absolutely wipe that missile out, then send vidoe copies of us doing it to Kim Jong Ill. If he does not like it, let him try and do something about it. North Korea and Iran has doing nothing more than attempt to goad the U.S. into a military confrontation. If that is what they really want, then give it to them. But give it to them in a way they will never forget, in a way that history will never forget.
FYI, diplomacy indicates that both parties are sane, Kim Jong Ill and that whack job that runs Iran are both crazy, unstable dictators. They both need to either join Zarqawi or be made to realize messing and threatening the U.S. is not in their best interest. A nuclear Iran, a country that 100% financially and logistically supports a terrorist group in Hezbollah, is not something we should even consider allowing. North Korea, is attempting to gather enough data to bomb the U.S., not only should we not allow this, we should wipe out any chance they have to do so.

It was pertinent when Churchill said it. The statement is pertinent now. It is better to jaw, jaw, jaw, rather than to war, war, war.
N. Korea and Iran want to talk to the US about differences between us. Let's get on with the diplomatic conversation(s).

Wow, there certainly are a lot of mad (as in "insane") people who comment on this discussion! Is it the right of the United States to go around blowing up whatever it wants to, anywhere in the world? (Or at least, anywhere in the world that isn't big enough to fight back?) Do the people who write "Blast 'em all!" have any conception of the fallout (figurative and literal) this would cause? Is the United States God, that it can strike down anything its weapons can reach? More proof of Lord Acton's statement about the corruption of power.

I'm not ordinarily worried about the statements of people on web comment sites (bunch of wankers with too much time on their hands, which would include me because I'm off work this weekend. Not wanking, though!) but this thinking also seems to pervade the corridors of power in Washington.

I'm an American who emigrated to Australia last year because I could no longer in good conscience be a tax-paying part of the war machine. Thank goodness I'm a registered nurse, so I mcould get a work visa. I believe in saving life, not taking it. Reading comments like the ones above makes me glad I got out of such a bloodthirsty country.

Is a nuclear retaliation a real possibility if we strike their missile facility in North Korea? North Korean agents or third parties could transport and detonate a bomb anywhere in the world in an uncoventional attack. Using third parties would insulate them from a massive retaliatory strike by the United States. But even if they choose to take the credit, say for destroying New York City before we destroy them, they will have altered world history and we will have given them a reason to do so. I believe they have already stated that they would make us pay if we ever attack them.

The most troubling aspect of this NK issue is the vague similarity to the sutuation between USA and Imperial Japan prior to WWII.
Ther we had a military regime under saanctions imposed by the USA, being ignored at the negotiations table.
History has a nasty habit of repeating itself, mostly with results that are far worse than before.

Some say Carter looked the other way when he had good reason to suspect Pakistan was developing nuclear weapons. Perhaps he had geopolitical interests in Afghanistan. And now we have a nuclear armed Pakistan which periodically does a eye glaring stare into similarly hateful Indian eyes.

At the very least, several presidents may have looked the other way as they knew Israel was developing its nuclear weapons program.

Bush has some sort of fanciful (or maybe terribly real politik creative?) idea about legitimizing India's nuclear weapons program outside the framework of the NPT.

For some years now he has watched North Korea expand its nuclear programs outside the NPT. A provocative pattern perhaps?

The nuclear shield of America, meant to deter the development of nuclear weapons by countries who otherwise might feel threatened enough to obtain nuclear weapons like Japan, like South Korea, like even perhaps Taiwan, must seem at least a little less reliable as these countries and others watch unified western hand wringing including plenty of gabbing as NK gabs and further develops its nuclear capabilities. Is there a concern that the leaders of other countries, thus far avoiding going nuclear, might be incentivized to do so by the perceived threat posed by North Korea and the U.S.'s, in some minds, timidity in the face of yet another potentially dangerous country - one posing an unmistakable but not clearly defined direct threat to them - not only having gone nuclear but possibly strengthening its capabilities?

There is a certain time line necessary to develop a nuclear weapons program. How far a head start can Japan, say, let NK have before it begins, if it begins, a defensive nuclear weapons option?

And if they do, and China won't like it a bit, maybe then China would weigh in big time to negatively affect the NK nuke program in return for some of their neighbors agreeing to terminate their nuclear weapons development programs.

With North Korea readying to launch it?s new Taepodong II missle, the nuclear table stakes just raised. On Tuesday, North Korea asserted that it has the right to test fire the missle with theoretical capability to reach the US, and I am going to agree with them.

However, it?s our right to protect ourselves, our allies, their neighbors, ships and aircraft in the area, or even endangered species it might pass near. In other words, we should shoot it down with any path near Japan, or any other allies. If it crosses boost phase with a path that takes it near Hawaii, or towards the United States, then the Missle Defense Agency should take it out. This would send a very powerful message to states with nuclear ambitions worldwide.

http://noblesseoblige.org/wordpress/?p=242

Where in our manifest destiny is the right to keep other countries from developing weapons we already own? At what point do we draw the line? Do we bomb rifle factories because the rifles made could be used against us?

Destroying the missile is a clear act of war. No ifs, and, or buts. And that, my friends is something America usually didn't do, at least before the 2000 election. Picture the Cuban missile crisis with Bush in office. Cuba would glow in the dark, and 70% of Russia and America would also.

We need an impeachment already, and if Bush considers attack yet another country, he should be ousted immediately.

There are two absolute courses. One is to do nothing about the missile and monitor the launch if and when it happens. The second is to either send a cruise missile in to preemptively destroy the launch site before the missile can be tested, or to attempt to shoot it down when it launches. The former is probably the safest, sanest course to take.

With tensions increasing vice Iran and North Korea, and thanks to the straightjacket called "Iraq", the United States is nearly painted into a corner in terms of its available response options to both countries. It would not surprise me if the US is eventually left with no choices except to employ the dreaded Nuclear Option.

In the Cold War, the MAD doctrine, or Mutually Assured Destruction, kept everyone's finger off the nuclear triggers. Post 9-11, we are now in the era of MAC - Mutually Assured Chaos. All bets are off. Sanity left the bulding the day the Neocons convinced George Bush to start a war in Iraq.

The timing of the situation seems pretty clear to me. If you think that we should retaliate - then now is the time. It is on the launchpad and it is fueled. It could be there indefinitely, or it could launch in five minutes. Either way, I don't believe he would fuel it up just to sit on the launch pad forever.

I'm not making a normative decision on whether we should or should not strike. Honestly, I just don't know. But either way - the time to act (if we choose to act) is now. We don't have anymore time.

commenting at variance from accepted wisdom, i see n. korea's most recent provocation as a sign that the american squeeze on n.korean sources of foreign exchange are working. the regime, which uses economic rewards directed to a vast kleptocratic bureaucracy, is increasingly less stable, making mr. kim more desparate for attention. so at this moment of highest provocation, it's important for the americans to recognize an opportunity to put mr. kim back in his box by giving him nothing, but the continuation of talks, in return for his backing off from a test missile launch. as an aside, the clinton policy failed because it didn't include an economic stick that sought to shut off n. korean earnings from counterfeiting u.s currency and missile sales.

I find no flaw in Perry and Carter's logic with respect to this subject. However, in my position I have less than full access to the facts, and am cautious in embracing their recommended course of action for that reason.

The nature of an ICBM program by a government such as North Korea's cannot be any less plain to governments in the region than it is to ours. This may well mean there are many avenues of pressure on Pyongyang. It is even conceivable that this episode could be helpful in clarifying the stakes of the North Korea nuclear situation for China and Russia particularly, making it less likely that North Korea will in the future be able to effectively play some of the five powers in the region off against the others.

I don't disagree with Perry and Carter that a North Korean ICBM test is something we can't allow. I'm just not convinced that we are at the point where only an airstrike can prevent it.

This whole North Korean issue is simple. Go down to YOUR local Wal-Mart and take a look on ANY of the boxes of electronics, shoes, clothes or toys. Note how many say "Made in China". China is NOT going to let a risk develop that turns off such a HUGE import of American trade dollars. They have "a guy" sitting in a room somewhere, playing a Sony X-Box game, with a 9mm strapped to his side and awaiting "orders" to go see a little guy that now leads North Korea.

When that happens, he'll go down for the "flag", his family will be duly compensated for his loss, the North Korean people will suddenly find a NEW, but previously "unknown" leader announcing his "promotion" with a platform of reunification with the South, all the Asian countries will be pacified, and China will get back to making YOUR goods for sale in this country.

Business as usual!

Did I miss something or did Perry ignore South Korea in his little trip up the ladder of escalation? I think he did. I wouldn't. I wouldn't do a damned thing unless South Korea asked, and I mean genuinely asked, not "coalition of the willing" stuff

Personally I am not at all convinced that under present conditions, Bush's Greatest Strategic Disaster in History hardly affords the US much leeway in attacking other countries but that even were we back in the good old Clinton days, I'd probably still have some serious reservations about the proportionality of a pre-emptive strike of this kind.

One mess at a time please. Military attacks are always messy.

Why not just invade North Korea, that way we'll also protect South
Korea. We also must invade Iran, right down the Axis and in the next
two years.

The missle is not a worthwhile target. If you're going to create an international incident, it better be worth it. A better target would be the nuclear facility—and only if all other solutions had been exhausted.

What kind of poeple have we become that we would actually run
the very real risk of starting a bloody and violent conflict in
the neighborhood of our friends, over one missile, that sits in
the middle of nowhere, in a country that has nothing but darkness,
desperation and misery ? How much blood are we willing to see
spilled on South Korea's beautiful new infrastructure and millions
of people for the satisfaction of blowing up one North Korean missile?

It is precisely because we do not know what the North Korean would
do that we must not strike them militarily. It is precisely because
we do know they most likely will react violently with their antiquated but still huge army, if their sovereign nation is hit with
a missile from the United States. What kind of people have we become that we would risk another
war and bloodshed over a single missile that sits in the middle of
nowhere in a country that has nothing but verbal bravado to save its
already humiliated and starving face?

I think the real question should be :is this administration ready to use nuclear bombs to defend South Korea from Northern invasion?
With most of the US ground forces bogged down in Iraq, the idea of invading SK might be crossing the minds of NK generals.

So says, according to news reports, author Suskind of Cheney: "if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction — and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time — the United States must now act as if it were a certainty." If Suskind is right and this thinking is correctly attributable to Cheney, why has the administration decided, for nigh on these many years, to stand in abeyance and watch NK get stronger where there is certainly a greater than 1% probability that they have some type of nuclear weaponry and some improving delivery capability? Is there some mystical difference in acting upon the mere suspicion of the threat between a terrorist one percenter and a Bush declared axis of evil state that is greater than a one percenter by every guessestimate thus far?

If by firing one missile US can eleminate the complete production facility of North Korea or bring the North Korea on negotiation table where the funds utilised for weapons of mass destruction can be alocated for the welfare of the nation then it can be justified.
North Korea on the other hand is a supplier of weapons to all over the world. the more US threatening North Korea the more they are keeping them on media. In fact this is their free advertisement.

North Korea has backed the US into a lose, lose, lose, position. Attack its missile on the ground and the US has committed an act of war against a sovereign nation - not to mention possible retaliation againt South Korea. Shoot it down and you do essentially the same thing - plus give away alot of anti-ballistic intelligence in the process. Attempt to shoot it down and miss - you are the laughing stock of the world. The best bet for the US is to cross its fingers and hope it goes off like a bad bottle rocket.

Kim M,

The reason South Korea is being so polite with North Korea is due to unification. It's an obsession, especially with South Korea (more so than with West Germany to unite with East Germany during the Cold War). They need to save face with their northern compatriots to not rock the chances, so taking a gingered approach in handling them is the move.

It's because of the unification issue I take reports from South Korea on the overall outlook with a grain of salt. In the rush to unite, they could and would overlook some serious violations to international law, human rights and more. They are a player to ease North Korea's temper tantrums to be noticed, but they also can be an enabler to their cousin in the zest to be one again. Which is why the whole ASEAN league would have to work out the particulars, not just let South Korea mainly handle the issue (as they could possibly turn into another China like State, which can threaten Southeast Asia — especially if they're willing to placate China [not willingly as historically Korea dislikes China] for a bigger share of the resource pie [a critical thing after unification to fuel it's industry]).

A lot of stacking of musical chairs out there. :/

SandyK

Mssrs. Carter and Perry manipulate and ignore a number of inconvenient facts in their analysis. A direct strike on North Korean territory would surely bring about hostile action against the South. In one sentence we are told that the North Koreans are a suicidal rogue state hell bent on using nuclear weapons against the United States, but then moments later we are told they lack the audacity to respond by attacking South Korea as a retaliatory measure. How is this dichotomy plausible?

Moreover, the reader is led to believe that the apparently unlikely "invasion of South Korea would bring about the certain end of Kim Jong Il's regime ...within a few bloody weeks of war." The North Korean war machine has been preparing for such an invasion for 50 years. Unlike the broken down infrastructure and poorly equipped forces of Iraq, the Koreans have an advanced military, partially funded and equipped by China for many years. Are we to believe that the conflict in Korea would last weeks while the hostilities against a strikingly less advanced Iraq have taken over three years? This is a nonsensical proposition.

But most importantly, this action has no strategic basis for the United States whatsoever. To what end would we destroy this missile? Are we to assume they only have one? Are willing to continuously destroy test attempts? How will we destroy it? We cannot attempt to target it with the nascent Missile Defense apparatus. The almost certain failure, were it to become public, would be a monumental embarrassment. Is the United States then to consider repeatedly bombing North Korean missile tests indefinitely? It's a silly idea, and it gives too much attention to what essentially amounts to an attention-grabbing temper tantrum.

The six party talks and placing the onus on the regional/ASEAN negotiators should remain the strategy.

What ever we do, do not use our ABM capabilities in any way on this missle. Why let the other side know what our capabilities are? If we can shoot down this missle in mid flight, great!!, but do not let anyone know. If NK knows we can shoot down thier missles, they will stop developing missles and work on another method. In the great global poker game, the hand only ends when nukes get thrown around. Until the hand ends, do not show your cards.

Now would be an opportune time to strike in order to achieve the maximum affect and set North Korea's programs back as much as is possible. The chance that North Korea would receive true and formal sympathy from the international community is small unless North Korea were to drastically change its policy and suddenly show more than diplomatic farce to the world. The strike should be wide-ranging against North Korea's nuclear program facilities, and should be accurate.

The one caveat to this plan is that international consensus must be built, and must include assurances from China and Russia that they will not take drastic action when such a strike occurs. If such consensus can be realized by the U.S., then the strike would have minimal negative side effects.

Of course, my hope that the caveat would actually enter the thoughts of our administration is not a bright one. The effort to build international consensus should be real, public, and transparent in order to increase the trust that the world has in the United States' foreign policy and our membership in the international community.

I AGREE WITH THE ARTICLE WHICH MR PERRY AND MR CARTER PUBLISHED IN THE "WASHINGTON POST" YESTERDAY (6/22/06. DESTROYING THE NORTH KOREAN MISSILE WOULD SEND A MESSAGE TO NORTH KOREA AND WISELY MAINTAIN THE PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE KOREAN PENINSULA. WHY WAIT? ISRAEL, FOR EXAMPLE, KNEW THE RISKS AND THE BENEFITS BY BOMBING THE IRAQ' NUCLEAR REACTOR BACK IN 1981. THIS IS A SIMILAR SITUATION. WE EITHER DESTROY THE MISSILE NOW...OR WAIT FOR NORTH KOREA TO MANUFACTURE A HECK OF A LOT MORE OF THE SAME MISSILE—-TO OUR PERIL. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. MR BUSH SHOULD NOT WAIT. DIPLOMACY? CAN WE EXPLAIN MILLIONS OF AMERICANS INCINERATED WHEN BUSH HAD TIME ON HIS SIDE? HISTORY IS IN THE MAKING. WE SHOULD WAIT NO MORE.

The U.S. should attempt to blow up the missile on the launch pad only if it can be done without being obvious that someone is attacking the missile. What the U.S. should want is for the missile test to fail seemingly from some type of failure of the missile. A missile failure would slow down the North Korean missile program and cause them to lose face.

It would have been better for the U.S. to secretly use the launch to test its anti-missile system. Attempting to shoot down the missile secretly would avoid adverse publicity if the attempt failed. Not acknowledging a successful interception would have discrediting the North Korean program and prevented them from knowing that they would have to find a way to prevent a U.S. missile from intercepting theirs.

North Korea really should be China's problem, but the Chinese government apparently doesn't recognize that North Korea, by attempting to deal only with the U.S., is saying that the U.S., rather than China, is the principle military power in East Asia. China fails to understand that allowing North Korea to have nukes would likely lead to South Korea and even Japan attempting to obtain their own nukes. Other minor powers like Vietnam, and possibly Taiwan, might also then purchase nukes from North Korea.

China should squash North Korea to demonstrate it won't allow its smaller neighbors to go nuclear like its big neighbors Russia and India. Squashing NOrth Korea would send a message to Taiwan that it shouldn't seek to claim it is an independent country without the need to risk war with the U.S.. I doubt that any major power would be upset if China squashed North Korea. China could then negotiate with the U.S. and South Korea to demilitarize the Korean peninsula with the South Korea government becoming the government for all of Korea.

The United States needs to recognize that the DPRK is threatening use of a missile in order to gain attention. Although the humanitarian crisis is great and that the DPRK relies much on aid from countries and NGOs, who may impose sanctions as a result of an new military action, the DPRK wants to prove it's "tough" and willing and able to take action like Iran. The world is too focused on the Middle East and the DPRK wants the Western and East Asian world to recognize that it is a powerful force, post-six party talks. The United States has seen this occur over the past decade every few years or so, yet still persists to antagonize a regime, who continually feels threatened.

The United States ignoring the DPRK, after the regime appears relatively stable in comparison to situations like now, only exacerbates the DPRK perception that the world believes it is a "second class" threat. Instead of threatening to preemptive strike, the United States must fully understand the motivations behind the DPRK's preparation to launch and fire a missile. The motivation stems from lack of attention, exacerbated with the new focus on Iran.

Re: the post on how ASEAN countries should handle the matter, I agree. Given the situation, the United States needs to allow the ROK, Japan, China, and Taiwan take the lead on this issue. Saving face is important in traditional Asian culture, nevertheless, I think it is applicable in the situation of the DPRK since North Korea only wants to appear as a threat. Why do you think the ROK media has disagreed with earlier reports re: how far the DPRK was in test launching the missile?

Yes, but not on the launch pad; a strike on their territory would be an act of war. Instead, blow it up during its flight. That would be both a defensive move and a real-world demonstration of the antimissle technology of which this Administration is so proud.

Personally, considering this is an Asian matter, those countries should have the option of striking down an intercontinental missile. Those in the know, understand that Japan does have that ability (and would to protect itself), but if they did it could escalate tensions between Japan and the rest of Asia (which has little to do with WWII, since the flak occured many years before that war). It's a catch-22 situation, but to bring real stability to the region the nations have to defend themselves, not depend on the USA to rescue them.

Would prefer the ASEAN members to handle their own backyard affairs of this nature, as it's their countries under the constant threat of China (with Taiwan) and North Korea (the whole area). It's more motivation for them to handle the dirty linen in private (it's face saving), with a better outcome than pure bribery from the West (bribery only continues the abuse cycle and can spread). They're neighbors and they know what cultural buttons to push to get North Korea inline to save face.

SandyK

Interesting analysis. Worth considering seriously....