North Korea, here we come?

[Moonliner]

So based on Bush's views... Why are we not invading North Korea?

They say outright they have weapons of mass destruction.

They now have the ability to deliver (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/world/asia/19korea.html?ei=5065&en=a9cf8a9a5a2863ad&ex=1151380800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print) said weapons

They are ruled by a decidedly unfriendly president with the will to use such weapons.

Sounds like all the pieces to the bush doctrine of preemptive aggression are in place why aren't we sending in the troops??

Oh wait I forgot one, how much oil do they have?

[wendybeth]

Well, they do have lots and lots of starving masses of humanity.....Oh, and concrete. It's everywhere there! It covers up the lack of vegetation of any kind that the SMoH ate up long ago.

[Scrooge McSam]

Oh wait I forgot one, how much oil do they have?

Bingo!

Plus, we're kinda busy with this whole war on a tactic thing.

[Nephythys]

of fer fvcks sake- if this was about oil why am I paying so much at the pump?

When are people going to let go of a totally unproven theory?

Leaving now-I can't take it today....

[Alex]

There would be strong regional opposition to a war in North Korea. Despite all the talk, the rest of the Arabian Peninsula didn't really have a big problem with us going into Iraq (as evidenced by the fact that our bases are in most of the other Arabian countries).

Further there are other powers in the region that we can reasonably expect to be capable of curtailing any North Korean aggression. Unlike Iraq, which listened to no one (though Russia tried) North Korea can not realistically completely isolate itself. This is why we insisted that any negotiations had to include China.

Further, North Korea already has the nuclear material necessary to create bombs. There is a huge difference between attacking a country to prevent acquisition (as with Iraq) and attacking to take it away.

Further, despite being bat-**** insane, North Korea has a 50-year track record of not actually making any attempts at territorial expansion (unlike Iraq) and while it has ties with terrorism they have mostly been regional and not directed at the United States (Japan has a lot more reason to worry about attack than we do).

So maybe the reason we're not invading North Korea is because, despite the ability to make a bulletted list showing similarities they are actually different situations.

[sleepyjeff]

Basically I agree with what Alex says here; but I would like to add that like it or not OIL is important not only to our economic engine but to the worlds....an Iraq with a Sadaam Hussain thumbing his nose at the World community could not be allowed. He would have been(or was) capable of bullying his neighbors(weapons or not; just convinving other leaders he had them is enough to bully them) and as he aged there really was no telling what he would do((for gosh sakes he tried to kill Bush I---an act of war in itself---))



So if anyone wants to say it was about oil....I am not going to argue; so long as you leave the word just out of the sentence;)

[€uroMeinke]

I think we should leave it up to the Japanese to invade them, they have a pretty good track record for being successful in that endevour.

[SacTown Chronic]

The War on Islam doesn't work if there are no Muslims to kill.

[Gemini Cricket]

I thought it was the war on brown people?
:D

[scaeagles]

I was thinking today....I sure am glad we continued with an anti missile defense system even when it was said that the current threats to the US did not have intercontinental ballistic technology. It's good to be prepared.

[sleepyjeff]

I still remember the ol Reagan detractors rolling their eyes at the idea saying " you can't hit a bullet with a bullet"...

....never say never:)

[Alex]

Of course, that assumes it works. Which, unless there have been secret successful tests (and it is hard to secretly launch a ballistic missile to see if you can shoot it down) isn't a sure thing by any means.

[sleepyjeff]

Very true.

[€uroMeinke]

Like most deterents, your opponant merely has to think they work to be effective

[sleepyjeff]

Is that from the Art of War?

[€uroMeinke]

Is that from the Art of War?

No, just an observation

[Moonliner]

I was thinking today....I sure am glad we continued with an anti missile defense system even when it was said that the current threats to the US did not have intercontinental ballistic technology. It's good to be prepared.

If I have this right.. In order to shoot down the missile the following would have to happen:

1. The rocket has to be real and have a functional third stage. Something they have NOT tested yet.

2. They would actually have to launch

3. The launch would have to work

4. They would have to launch it on a trajectory close enough to the US for us to justify a counter.

5. The Pres. would have to approve the intercept

6. The Intercept would have to work

Add in the potential embarrassment of missing and thereby showing the bluff of a "working system" and/or the embarrassment to North Korea if their big weapon is plucked from the sky....

Nope. It ain't gonna happen.

It's just saber rattling on both sides.


Oh, and I see you found my "Welcome back" thread I created just for you...

[scaeagles]

So...The Patriot anti missile system worked pretty well a decade ago against short range missiles, but with advances in technology over the last decade we can't shoot down a long range missile?

[Moonliner]

So...The Patriot anti missile system worked pretty well a decade ago against short range missiles, but with advances in technology over the last decade we can't shoot down a long range missile?

Define pretty well"

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992 refrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile#Patriot_in_the_Persian_Gulf_War_.2 81991.29)

[scaeagles]

I guess we can play this all day.....from the same link, in reference to action seen in 2003 during the initial invasion of Iraq -

Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success rate intercepting Al Samoud-2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles.

So, improvements over 12 years led to a higher success rate. I see that as progress. So hitting a bullet with a bullet can be done.

[Gemini Cricket]

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea...
Seems like a lot to focus on with our troops already stretched thin.

[scaeagles]

And to add, there are other experts who disagree with Postol -

Charles A. Zakret is a scholar in residence at the Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Zraket testified that "the methodology described by Professor Postol and Mr. Pedatzur in their articles was not scientifically valid and therefore did not prove that Patriot didn't work in The Gulf War. Also, they had offered no substantive analysis of the results in Saudi Arabia, where deployment of Patriot, the level of training of operational crews, and the nature of the Scud engagements were quite different from the situation in Israel." (Testimony of Charles A. Zraket before the House Subcommittee on Government Operations, on April 7, 1992)

There is a high level of debate out there.

source (http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html)

[scaeagles]

Seems like recent tests of new systems are going pretty well.

Successful missile intercept reported in US sea-based defense test
(http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060623001445.r0o3j49z.html)

"The missile successfully intercepted the target warhead outside the earths atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai," the agency said in a statement.

(I)t was the seventh successful intercept using the sea-based missile defense system out of eight tries.

[sleepyjeff]

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea...
Seems like a lot to focus on with our troops already stretched thin.



Of the 37 combat brigades and Armored Cavalry Regiments in the US Army's active component, some 12 are currently deployed (including one from the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea). Another 10 have recently returned from deployment, including both of the two Armored Cavalry Regiments (it should be noted that press and Army officials tend to lump the ACR's in with the Brigades when counting total combat brigades). A total of 9 Brgiades are slated for deployment over the course of 2005.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm