|
|
Post by Cranky on May 25, 2009 0:13:33 GMT -5
Normally, this would be another day in the office of that Alice In Wonderland country, led by the Mad Hatter....BUT....
Japan is getting increasingly worried that it will be a pawn between the US and China. They have to wonder how committed the US is in their nuclear umbrella. Can anyone seriously believe that Omaba would risk Anchorage for Osaka? I ALWAYS thought it was a hilarious joke to expect the Americans to nuke another country on someone's behalf.
So some of the consequences.......
A nuclear Japan. Which would make China EXTREMELY nervous. Which will complicate the entire Asia geopolitical balance.
A very, very nervous S Korea.
Iran is watching VERY CLOSELY at the what happens next. Any action, or far more likely, NO ACTION, will determine the speed and brashness the mullahs develop their nuke.
Israel is getting incredibly nervous. The recent meeting between Obama and Netayanhu was nothing but Obama administration buying time. Odds are that the Obama administration is avoiding ANY ACTION until the Iranian bomb is fait accompli. Then there is the simple matter of Obama saying "too late, there is nothing they can do". On the other hand, the Israeli population is getting very nervous and over 50% want the Iranian facilities destroyed NOW. This is not a lot more that Netayanhu, a notable hawk, needs as support.
Sometimes, there are points in history that have far reaching consequences, I think that this is one of them....and I am very concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 25, 2009 5:56:06 GMT -5
If Kim tested a nuke in North Korea, O'bama should test one there too, preferably in Pyongyang.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 25, 2009 12:37:37 GMT -5
Funny how the righteous Americans invaded Irak, "to save the country", because of invented suspicions of perhaps/maybe nuclear activity there while Korea is blasting bomb at the face of the world without repercussions. If only they had oil...
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on May 25, 2009 12:48:10 GMT -5
Funny how the righteous Americans invaded Irak, "to save the country", because of invented suspicions of perhaps/maybe nuclear activity there while Korea is blasting bomb at the face of the world without repercussions. If only they had oil... China and N.Korea are best buddies! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 25, 2009 14:07:01 GMT -5
Funny how the righteous Americans invaded Irak, "to save the country", because of invented suspicions of perhaps/maybe nuclear activity there while Korea is blasting bomb at the face of the world without repercussions. If only they had oil... The difference between Iraq and N. Korea is quite acute. Yes, Iraq has oil, but more importantly (at least in terms of justification) it was a non-nuclear state within the American sphere of influence that was attempting to develop nuclear weapons. An invasion, it was hoped, would be a simple and quick military operation (and indeed it did not take much to defeat the government - however insurgents were not accounted for) that would add stability to a characteristically unstable region (which it may or may not have succeeded at, depending on who you ask). N. Korea, OTOH, is a rouge nation that benefits from living in the bubble between China and the rest of the world. The Americans can not invade N. Korea (or attack them in any way) lest the Chinese get their hair up. The Chinese can not invade N. Korea lest the Americans (and S. Koreans) get their hair up. N. Korea floats in this protected bubble, and exploits this. We'd like to stop him, but stopping Kim Jong-Il has greater consequences. As for the nuclear detonation - I think it's being overblown. We've known since 2006 that N. Korea was capable of detonating nuclear weapons. So all this is is a little reminder that we live in a world where a madman has his finger on the button. How mad is he? Is he mad enough to push the button? I don't know. But Kim has managed to hang onto power against all odds. And that tells me he's either not half as mad as we think he is, or he has very clever advisors. And either way, he (or his advisors) must understand that a nuclear attack against any target will bring a harsh response which will end their careers and very likely their lives. HA is right in being more concerned about the geopolitical fallout. I don't think a nuclear Japan will make the Chinese any more nervous. We don't live in an age where the launch position of a nuke has much to do where it ends up. ICBM's can hit China from the mainland U.S., to say nothing of subs equipped with nuclear missiles. Nukes in Japan aren't even necessary. One Ohio class submarine possesses enough weaponry to turn N. Korea into a glass parking lot (for reference, each Ohio class sub carries 24 Trident-2 missiles, and each Trident-2 missile has a payload of around 100 kt. The recent nuclear bomb detonated by N. Korea has a yield of 25 kt). Iran will probably take hints from this on how to proceed with their nuclear program, but remember N. Korea is a nuclear state (since 2006) supported by a nuclear state (China). Iran does not have these benefits. It's also quite a ways behind N. Korea's in terms of possible developments. The Iranians are just now beginning to enrich uranium. That means the development of a nuclear weapon is 8-10 years away. Of course that's not very far away for those living in Israel, especially considering the Iranian government are quite dedicated to destroying Israel - but in terms of me and you that's a long time for other thins to develop. Obama sure won't be preseident then, so I don't know why he's worried about stalling. It's also important to remember that having a bomb is not equal to being able to use it. N. Korea has never launched a test nuclear missile, and in general its missiles are of terribly low quality. SCUD's would have to be their weapon of choice (no subs to use their shorter range missiles, and their bomber fleet is horribly outdated - as in WW2 vintage bomber jets) as their longer range Taepodong class missiles have both failed spectacularily lately. An attack by South Korea on any nation (any nearby nation) is likely to do little except kill a couple million people (a tragedy, but certainly not a crippling strike) and make every other nation in the world terribly, terribly upset with them (and by upset I mean Pyongyang will be glassed). |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 25, 2009 15:28:20 GMT -5
Funny how the righteous Americans invaded Irak, "to save the country", because of invented suspicions of perhaps/maybe nuclear activity there while Korea is blasting bomb at the face of the world without repercussions. If only they had oil... I saw M*A*S*H Didn't work then; won't work now. Then again, neither did the whole Iraq thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 25, 2009 19:38:09 GMT -5
An attack by South Korea on any nation (any nearby nation) is likely to do little except kill a couple million people (a tragedy, but certainly not a crippling strike) and make every other nation in the world terribly, terribly upset with them (and by upset I mean Pyongyang will be glassed). By whom? WHO is going to strike NK if they launch a nuke against Japam? The US? Will the American vaporize a million pople on behalf of Japan? Or SK? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 25, 2009 20:59:28 GMT -5
The last time North Korea threatened to do this the USA basically talked them out of it. IIRC, the USA provided enough compensation to make it worth their while. If I find a link to this I'll post it later. Still, here's a cut and paste from Canoe.ca "Pyongyang also test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles Monday from the same northeastern site where it launched a rocket last month, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported, citing unnamed sources. UN resolutions bar North Korea from engaging in any ballistic missile-related activity."If this is so, then the UN is now obliged to step in (if they can muster the support of their member nations that is). However, they've already dropped the ball in that context. Check out the updated source on Wikipedia:It was reported on January 17, 2009, that North Korea had weaponized around thirty kilograms of plutonium.[46] Also, a U.S. scholar visiting North Korea around that time was informed by Pyongyang that there was enough plutonium to sustain four or five nuclear bombs.
On May 25, 2009, North Korea announced that it had conducted a second nuclear test prompting outrage from countries all across the globe.[48] The announcement came just after geological sensors in South Korea detected an artificial tremor.[48] According to the Russian Defense Department, the blast yield of the second bomb was between 10 and 20 kilotons, comparable to the size of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII.They even had a chance to do something back on April 5th of this year when: On April 5, 2009, North Korea launched a rocket (Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2) over Japan that landed in the Pacific Ocean, an act that defied United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, which dictated that North Korea suspend all ballistic missile activities. I'm trying to think of what would benefit the North Koreans by doing all of this. I don't know who would support them other than China and I'm not sure to what extent that would be. As far as I know China has a strategic alliance with Russia (BRIC Alliance formerly BRICS until South America dropped out) and Russia isn't in cahoots with NK as far as I can figure out. So what is in it for NK? I used to I think the sub-surface issue with this little country is about making lots of money by selling their technology to countries willing to buy it. But now I don't know. They're just acting irresponsibly and foolish now. So what's in it for them? Any ideas? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by gy on May 25, 2009 22:30:31 GMT -5
Funny how the righteous Americans invaded Irak, "to save the country", because of invented suspicions of perhaps/maybe nuclear activity there while Korea is blasting bomb at the face of the world without repercussions. If only they had oil... You can't blame the entire nation for the horrible decisions of one intellectually and ethically challenged Texas stumblebum who hijacked the US government and allowed his Dr. Strangelove of a vice president manage US foreign policy. As for North Korea, they'll gain nothing. Since negotiating with them has proved futile I'd stop bribing them with food and fuel and let the country starve. The North Koreans would probably attack South Korea but they'd lose in a war of attrition as their industrial base and transportation system is demolished from the air. Let the Chinese deal with the millions of wretched refugees who would flood into China. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 25, 2009 23:11:32 GMT -5
Funny how the righteous Americans invaded Irak, "to save the country", because of invented suspicions of perhaps/maybe nuclear activity there while Korea is blasting bomb at the face of the world without repercussions. If only they had oil... You can't blame the entire nation for the horrible decisions of one intellectually and ethically challenged Texas stumblebum who hijacked the US government and allowed his Dr. Strangelove of a vice president manage US foreign policy. As for North Korea, they'll gain nothing. Since negotiating with them has proved futile I'd stop bribing them with food and fuel and let the country starve. The North Koreans would probably attack South Korea but they'd lose in a war of attrition as their industrial base and transportation system is demolished from the air. Let the Chinese deal with the millions of wretched refugees who would flood into China. I was talking to a guy whose son is working in Japan in high tech. His son said that the NK nuke program is all about money, or at least this is what Japanese opinion is. But even if it was about money, that cash would only go to those calling the shots anyway. I doubt ordinary North Koreans would see any benefits of that money, or even know about it in the first place. I scratch my head because it was as you said, the USA bribed them with essentials. However, do they want more now? One thing you learn in the military about negotiations; you never use bribes during negotiations even at the lowest levels. If you bribe a local commander to get by his checkpoint, you'll have to bribe him on the way back. Soon the come to expect this from not only you, but everyone. Well, who knows. Maybe this is their way of obtaining more bribes. One thing might work; remove that authoritarian mindset first, then help the country get back to the present. Easier said than done me thinks. Would this be a just action in comparison to Iraq Afghanistan, et al? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 26, 2009 0:25:59 GMT -5
And right on cue....this is why I think that this event is different in so many dangerous ways. In fact, it may be a far greater harbinger then the Al Quida bombing of the American embassy..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088065.html'If Israel doesn't remove Iranian threat, no one will' If Israel does not eliminate the Iranian threat, no one will, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday.
"Israel is not like other countries," Netanyahu told his Likud faction in a meeting which came one week after his meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House. "We are faced with security challenges that no other country faces, and our need to provide a response to these is critical, and we are answering the call."
"These are not regular times. The danger is hurtling toward us?The real danger in underestimating the threat," Netanyahu said, addressing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. "My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel ... the leadership's job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one."
Advertisement
"Our relationship with the United States is of great importance," Netanyahu said. "Our situation today is different from our situation between 1996 and 1999. Our priorities must be inline with national security needs and we must unite in order to deflect the danger. The Defense Minister and I are working in coordination; he is not conducting an independent policy."
Netanyahu added that he reached understandings Obama, among them that the most important goal for both countries is preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear military capability. Netanyahu told Likud members that Israel received a number of key pieces of defense aid from the Americans. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 26, 2009 7:48:33 GMT -5
Well, Bibi said he'd do it if he gets into office and he's in office now. Won't be surprised if and when it happens.
As for North Korea, they fired a missile over Japan only a few weeks ago. That missile went into Pacific and they insisted that it was a satellite rocket that went bad. Well, I just read they fired more missiles recently so that excuse is pretty much out the window.
Interesting times.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 26, 2009 8:20:07 GMT -5
An attack by South Korea on any nation (any nearby nation) is likely to do little except kill a couple million people (a tragedy, but certainly not a crippling strike) and make every other nation in the world terribly, terribly upset with them (and by upset I mean Pyongyang will be glassed). By whom? WHO is going to strike NK if they launch a nuke against Japam? The US? Will the American vaporize a million pople on behalf of Japan? Or SK? They have to. Well, maybe not vaporize - although a nuclear attack would be the expected retaliation - but there would certainly have to be very severe consequences (supported by every other significant nuclear power - China, the U.K., France, Russia and the U.S.A.) lest the entire house of card we've built around these weapons fall apart. Think about it this way. America has said she will protect Japan. It N. Korea attacks Japan with impunity (with no significant consequence) then what does that sa? That America is weak and vulnerable to attack. Now anyone who can get their hands on a nuclear weapon can attack America without fear of significant reprisal. Further to that end the other major nuclear powers also have to support a heavy handed retaliation. China and Russia might throw up minor objections, but in the end all of these countries know and understand that the only thing that keeps us from nuking each other to kingdom come is the threat of retaliation. It's a fragile house of cards, but it is well known among the leaders of these nations (none of whom are as crazy as Kim Jong Il) that a nuclear attack on any nation - not just their own - has to be responded to in force, lest the usage of such weapons become a casual affair. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 26, 2009 9:05:59 GMT -5
By whom? WHO is going to strike NK if they launch a nuke against Japam? The US? Will the American vaporize a million pople on behalf of Japan? Or SK? They have to. Well, maybe not vaporize - although a nuclear attack would be the expected retaliation - but there would certainly have to be very severe consequences (supported by every other significant nuclear power - China, the U.K., France, Russia and the U.S.A.) lest the entire house of card we've built around these weapons fall apart. Think about it this way. America has said she will protect Japan. It N. Korea attacks Japan with impunity (with no significant consequence) then what does that sa? That America is weak and vulnerable to attack. Now anyone who can get their hands on a nuclear weapon can attack America without fear of significant reprisal. Further to that end the other major nuclear powers also have to support a heavy handed retaliation. China and Russia might throw up minor objections, but in the end all of these countries know and understand that the only thing that keeps us from nuking each other to kingdom come is the threat of retaliation. It's a fragile house of cards, but it is well known among the leaders of these nations (none of whom are as crazy as Kim Jong Il) that a nuclear attack on any nation - not just their own - has to be responded to in force, lest the usage of such weapons become a casual affair. Let's not kid ourselves. No US President would have the cojones to nuke another country on someone else's behalf. It would be political suicide, on top of ripping the country apart and provoking a nuclear strike against their own people. They might and likely would invade, but without nukes. But I think people give Kim Jong Il far too little credit. In my estimation he's not a madman sitting in a giant chair with his finger circling around a red button. He's deliberate and thoughtful and trying to extract as many economic concessions and as much food relief as possible from surrounding countries by creating an imposing (but truthfully likely fairly impotent) threat for extortion purposes. After all, from what I've read North Korea is pretty much a wasteland for useful natural resources. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 26, 2009 10:28:47 GMT -5
Let's not kid ourselves. No US President would have the cojones to nuke another country on someone else's behalf. It would be political suicide, on top of ripping the country apart and provoking a nuclear strike against their own people. Well, there's a couple of little niggling things here. Would it be political suicide? I mean it's one thing to say "if Obama launches a first strike it would be political suicide". It's another thing to say "this nation has nuclear weapons and has demonstrated a willingness to use them against our close allies - do you want an attack to happen to Americans next?" The second thing is that the response need not come from the US. The vast majority of the nuclear powers in the world have interests in the region - the UK has Commonwealth nations in the area, the French still retains control of some Pacific islands IIRC and India and Pankistan are all well withing the theoretical range of N. Korean weapons (although India and Pakistan may be a stretch, as I doubt the missiles have the range required to clear the mountains. To say nothing of China and Russia. Whose to say Kim Jong Il doesn't threaten any of those interests next? Whose to say an errant N. Korea nuclear missile (because their missiles are generally regarded to be absolute crap) does land in China or Russia next time? Do ou think the other nuclear nations in the world (except possibly India and Pakistan - as mentioned - and Israel) aren't going to say "we could be next" and respond in force? They might and likely would invade, but without nukes. I think that would be a far more palattable approach for the doves, and as long as it is done correctly (i.e. China is kept out of it, or even joins in the invasion on our side) then end result is the same. It doesn't matter if nuclear weapons are used or not, so long as they get spanked properly. But I think people give Kim Jong Il far too little credit. In my estimation he's not a madman sitting in a giant chair with his finger circling around a red button. He's deliberate and thoughtful and trying to extract as many economic concessions and as much food relief as possible from surrounding countries by creating an imposing (but truthfully likely fairly impotent) threat for extortion purposes. After all, from what I've read North Korea is pretty much a wasteland for useful natural resources. I agree. You don't stay in power as long a Jong Il has by being crazy and taking stupid risks. You stay in power because you're smart and hungry, and he is both of those things. Either that, or he is a puppet and the real power behind the throne is even more intelligent. Yet another reason to ignore this as saber rattling - there's no way a man who is as powerful as Kim Jong Il is within his own country is stupid enough to launch a nuclear first strike against any nation given his own nations measley nuclear capacity. As for Korea being a "wasteland" devoid of natural resources - the numbers speak differently. The nations is rated by FAO as being the 10th largest fresh fruit producer in the world and has large supplies of minerals including iron, zinc, fluorite, copper, salt, lead, tungsten, graphite, magnesite, gold, pyrites and fluorspar. However it is the policy of juche - self-reliance - that hampers them. The nations lacks the esources to provide for all those who live there, and refuses to import them by normal means. So help has to come from the outside by means of handouts.... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 26, 2009 11:03:10 GMT -5
I'm wondering what's going on behind the scenes right now. Chinese, Russian, Japanese and American envoys discussing what the next course of action should be. They have to be on the same page because if they're not it could make this a very volatile situation.
The best thing, IMO, is to remove that authoritarian regime. How to do it is another matter all together, though. Would it be a bloody coup or would it be done quickly by just removing the hierarchy?
But, if it does happen, who then moves in to replace them? This is a new problem that simply has to be ironed out. Would the Chinese and Russians accept an American puppet government? Would the Americans accept the reverse? Would it be an reunification of the two Koreas?
Lots of unanswered questions, but that regime has to be replaced first and foremost. Just my opinion.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2009 19:40:52 GMT -5
You mean to tell me that the CIA, the Navy Seals, MI5 (or is it 6?), Scotland Yard, and all those little spy agencies can't find a way to assassinate this fool in a hush hush (bullet shot from a kilometer away) sort of way? (Too Hollywood?)
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 26, 2009 22:59:25 GMT -5
You mean to tell me that the CIA, the Navy Seals, MI5 (or is it 6?), Scotland Yard, and all those little spy agencies can't find a way to assassinate this fool in a hush hush (bullet shot from a kilometer away) sort of way? (Too Hollywood?) I believe the US government is prohibted from actively seeking out assassination as a means to resolving an international issue. Drop a tomahawk on a guys head and if it kills him - that's okay. But shoot him with a bullet and it's not. Don't ask me why. As for the other nations - assassinating a political leader cleanly is not the easiest thing to do. I know, for example, that whenever Her Majesty the Queen goes anywhere in Canada it is done under the utmost security. In a nation like North Korea, where so much is controlled (i.e. there is a national dress code) and so totalitarian (people are routinely dragged off and killed for little reason) that it'd be hard to slip a small team in and do a "Hollywood" assassination. Perhaps you could use a military strike team, but it wouldn't be very queit and even that's iffy - N. Korea has the fifth largest (in terms of manpower) in the world. That's right. Fifth largest. Behind China, the US, India and Russia. Canada is 46th - behind Angola and Venuzuela and in front of Romania and Nepal. So even a military strike might run into trouble. Finally, even if we somehow manage to assassinate Kim Jong-Il there is always the question of what's next. Anyone remember trying to force democracy on the Iraqi people? Didn't work well did it. And that was with an occupying army to force people to behave. In N. Korea it would likely be Kim Jong-Il's third son, whose name I forget but who is being groomed to succeed his father, who came to power in the event of his father's untimely death (Kim Jong-Il suffered a stroke last year, so you can bet this is being planned for even as we type - in fact I wouldn't be surprised to find out these missile launches and nuclear test are tied to him raising public opinion of him to make a handoff smoother). Is that really any better? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 27, 2009 1:42:14 GMT -5
Here is a series of posts that I made in another forum...advocating a stance and I am taking a lot of heat for it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the time, I felt that the best scanrio was to ignore NK. The equivilant of a child trying to get attention with a firecracker. But not now....
This in the end has a lot less to do with NK then it has to do with Iran and Israel. While there are greater long term geopolitical issues that may have other events distort the path, the Iran/Israel issue is a clear and present danger.
What obami needs to do is....
Shift concern about NK to China. One of the ways to do that is indirectly by raising the rhetoric of a nuclearized Japan and SK. The prospects of those two countries going nuclear is anathema to China. By linking regional nuclearization to NK actions, China will be forced to consider toppling or crippling NK versus the longer term and much greater issue of nuclear neighbors. The downside to a successful Chinese resolution to NK would also raise the Chinese geopolitical profile. Not good for the US.
Second.....
Seriously consider arming Saudi Arabia and Turkey with a FEW nuclear weapons. The mullahs end game of boasting nuclear supremacy and regional hegemony is neutered the minute their neighbors have an greater weapon then they have. While it appears to be the wrong path by creating a nuclearize Middle East, the path has already been set by Pakistan, Israel and Iran. In fact, Saudi Arabia has already alluded to acquiring nukes from Pakistan. Turkey/Egypt is also looking at expanding their "civil" nuclear program particularly if Iran has a bomb. If the spread is inevitable with a nuclearized Iran, then might as well take the chance that Iran may back down rather then be ringed by nukes.
Of course, this path is a "no sale" to Israel. On the other hand, a failed bombing run, or even a succesful one would enrage Iran and set them to a faster path of acquisition. Simply, a no win scenario for Israel.
Both of these paths do not cost American lives or money. To take either or both is dangerous and has no quaranteed outcome. But to take no path is even more dangerous.
Sometimes......one has to play geopolitical chess for very, very high stakes.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~
If anyone has argued against a nuclearized middle east, it would be me. I have coined "nukes with no home address" often enough and long enough that it probably entered the urban dictionary by now. So why the change of strategy?
First thing....the US informed Egypt that Israel could go nuclear and RUSSIA flew nukes wit Russian control. That was a hell of a deterrence to any irrational act by Israel. It also showed Egypt how far the stakes could go.
Second thing....Suadi Arabia going nuclear is a given if Iran does. Same for Turkey and Egypt.
Third...Pakistan is alread a semi anarchy as compared to the above three and we already live with that danger.
So you have a given probability of events (outcomes), the only thing you are left with is to control the path. The second rational of this is the MAD policies. So far, the mullahs are advocating a nuclear Iran to it's people as if there was no consequences. A clear nuclear retaliation policy by couple of their next door neighbors, ANDMuslim, will show that there are indeed very real consequences to Irans nuclearization. Further....the people of Iran will now feel the clear threat of mass destruction in their own cities. Also...the mullahs risk a counter revolution. Fear is a wonderful concentrator of thought and action for the masses. Lastly...any action on the mullahs part will also mean a very destructive response making them "leaders" of nothing more then their own coffins. While mullahs talk of "sacrifice", they have spend massive resources to protect their power and future. turn the "win/win" trhetoric of the mullahs to a "lose/lose" nightmare.
Yes, the proposal has a clear downside but it is nothing more then what is expected and highly likely. Egypt, Turkey and SA WILL become nuclear powers simply to protect themselves. Of that there is no question. So MORE nukes of no return address have a very, very real future with or without any action by the West. Then the ONLY thing left to do is control that path. Show Iran that you are prepaired to pave the way to their own miserable destruction from their direct MUSLIM neighbors and I am certain that this would act far more as a deterrent then a hundred "meetings", a thousand UN resolutions and a million sanctions.
There are of course a million devils in the details. We simply don't hand SA and company nukes and then say, "have fun". The entire philosophy of deterence is the the threat itself. Build it up with "policy" announcements, regional meetings, public display of weapons, "training" videos, conferences, in other words, create an atmosphere of impending doom and gloom for Iran. Take the discussion away from the mullahs and bring it to the Itranin people through Al Jezeera and the streets. Utlimatly, the "hand over" would be nothing more then nukes with two keys, of which one can be controlled by the West. Or at the worst, of low level nukes that are lethal but limited.
There is a method to my MAD'ness......
~~~~~~~~~~
Raising but controlling the "heat" is not a bad policy with so much at stake. Obami presents himself as a "man of peace" and this could be used to advantage. Everybody expected GB to take hawkish action but if obami does it, it should be presented as "I tried but this is the only thing left". In fact, the Iranian mullahs biggest fear was pre-election that they may be facing a widely popular American president that they could not paint as a warmonger. They may still be worried about it BUT if obami does nothing....then this may embolden them to MORE action.
~~~~~~~~
One more thing.....
Iranina mullahs was prepaired to "negotiate" their nuclear path with GB when they saw the speed and severity of the American invasion of Iraq (note Lybia's nuclear capitulation). The mullahs were enbolden once again when the US was bogged down. There is a clear message in this. Faced with a REAL threat of destruction, they were willing to discuss terms. Faced with indecision and perceived weakness, they will flail away headlong into their path.
Right now, the mullahs see a very war weary, bogged down America and a "peace and discussion" President.
~~~~~~~~~
This is the path that I would also take BUT the costs should not be understimated. Given the economic outlook of America today, "boot on the ground bases" would amount to a big, bleeding cut.
To sidetrack this conversation a bit. One of the biggest fears I had was that wars would bleed American financial power. As we saw in WW2, Britain was in finiancial ruins after their two wars and any vestiges of superpower were bled away. Sure, they were not at the scale of Iraq/Afghanistan, but it serves as a reminder that wars bleed away financial power. if there was no China/India in the horizon, then bleeding away some financial power to keep "boots on the ground" hegemony is good trade-off.
The US nees to keep their hegemony by devide and conquer. A nuclearized Japan and SK costs the US nothing and yet occupies China to no end, plus it puts NK actions directly on their heads. A "threat" of a nuclearized middle east costs the US nothing and yet may (or may not) act as the deterrent to Iran that the US needs. On top of that, it maintains an unquestioned US hegemony in the region.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 27, 2009 11:22:51 GMT -5
The US can do all of those things, but are the other countries going to let them? It's not hard to see through a chess player throwing his pawns out on the board but keeping his king, queen, bishops, knights and rooks tucked out of harm's reach. Are other countries willing to play this geopolitical chess match as pawns? What do Japan and South Korea have to gain by going nuclear. It's a deterrent to North Korea, but it's also a provocation. At the moment North Korea has something to barter with (their nuclear program) in exchange for aid and financial concessions. Once their surrounding enemies have the same nuclear deterrent that nuclear program then becomes a necessity that NK cannot surrender or even barter, because they need it as defense (no, Japan and SK aren't going to attack, but that's likely not the perception in Pyongyang). That just holes NK up even more and increases the volatility of the situation. What is NK going to do to get additional aid then? They're going to impose military threats as barter, as opposed to right now when it's just a testing program. I think there's a big difference to bartering from the position "we have nukes and you don't want us to" compared to "we're going to use our nukes." Maybe China will back away from North Korea at that point, but that remains to be seen. As for the Middle East, no stability can ever exist in the region while Israel still exists. I'm sorry to say that for Israelis, but in my opinion it's the truth. I think there's some validity to what appears to be a "give everyone nukes so it evens out" plan, but I don't think it goes anywhere. All it does is expedites whatever endgame exists now. Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lybia.. they all hate Israel and that won't stop just because a bunch of others nations have nukes, too. Is Saudi Arabia going to nuke Iran because they dropped one on Israel? No, of course not. The Allied nations annexed that land for the Jews back in 1948, and it's on them to keep it safe, not play nuclear chess with Israel's existence. A few of my thoughts, anyway. I don't spend much time thinking about this, but that doesn't stop me from speaking my mind! haha  |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 27, 2009 12:05:06 GMT -5
That's a lot to digest HA. I can see why you're catching flak for it, but there's some good points in there. Some thoughts on the whole:
(1) You seem to be confusing having nuclear weapons and being able to use them. NK is a long way from being able to use their nukes against anyone except China and SK. Maybe - maybe they can lob one into Japan and get lucky, but that's a hell of a long shot. They also have, at most, a handful of devices. It'll be ten years or more before the get the ability to do anything with their weapons (other than detonate them under ground). Iran is ten years behind NK. So we're not looking at something that has to be dealt with on the short term, but something that will have to be managed over a longer time scale than just this year.
(2) Handing China control of the situation in NK may not be what we want to do. I don't think what they think will be a good solution would match our opinion. What needs to be done is to get China more involved in a positive way. Make the Chinese understand that if NK misbehaves it'll bring the west to their doorsteps and unless they want a showdown they should want to help keep NK in line. I don't thinking saying to the Chinese "it's your problem, deal with it" will work.
(3) Ringing Iran with nuclear weapons - not a terrible idea. Putting nuclear weapons in Turkey - tolerable, but not the greatest idea. Putting nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia? Quite possibly suicidal. While the Saudi's are nominally our allies, lets not forget that that great kingdom has given rise to one of the worst anti-West groups in existence today. The last thing you want, IMHO, is to give that nations nukes which may then be turned against us.
MAD relies on a mutual understanding of destruction. If someone - like say Muslim Terrorists - views self-destruction in a favourable light (77 virgins and all that jazz) then our house of cards could collapse To that end we should endeavour to keep nukes in the hands of as few people as possible.
---
Somewhere above I mentioned that this is a long term problem, not a short term one. I think a lot of your solutions are geared to making a firm statement now and hoping it doesn't prove too costly. I think, instead, that a few smaller statements from a few more nations might fix this.
You mention China in relation to NK and I think that bringing China in is the way to solve it. Like I said, not a wholesale "it's not my problem anymore" hand-off. But perhaps China either agrees to back off and let the Americans or Russians (or both) make surgical strikes against the North Korean nuclear installations. In Iran turn to Turkey and Russia. Offer American logistical support and perhaps put some of that impressive Navy to good use (as an aside you can cycle boats from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden quickly, allowing you to provide a stronger presence against Somali piracy and civer the anti-Iranian actions.
Nuclear proliferation is not an option though. It's a lousy move IMHO - one which will bite the west far faster than it helps us in any meanigful way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 27, 2009 22:04:58 GMT -5
Wait for North korea to nuke South Korea and Japan.
Then hit them with a strongly worded resolution that most but not all nations will sign!
Refuse to trade with them and their counterfeit dollars.
Threaten them with an even stronger resolution, make faces at them accross the DMZ.
Can we do without importing their, err........what do we import from them?
Send Hillary to negotiate with them without preconditions.
Offer to send them all the plutonium they want.
That will teach them a lesson.
- or -
Nuke the ba$t@r&s into the 18th century before they attack and see who steps in to help them.
They really believe in Boris Baddenov and their fearless leader.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 27, 2009 22:05:34 GMT -5
The US can do all of those things, but are the other countries going to let them? It's not hard to see through a chess player throwing his pawns out on the board but keeping his king, queen, bishops, knights and rooks tucked out of harm's reach. Are other countries willing to play this geopolitical chess match as pawns? What do Japan and South Korea have to gain by going nuclear. It's a deterrent to North Korea, but it's also a provocation. At the moment North Korea has something to barter with (their nuclear program) in exchange for aid and financial concessions. Once their surrounding enemies have the same nuclear deterrent that nuclear program then becomes a necessity that NK cannot surrender or even barter, because they need it as defense (no, Japan and SK aren't going to attack, but that's likely not the perception in Pyongyang). That just holes NK up even more and increases the volatility of the situation. What is NK going to do to get additional aid then? They're going to impose military threats as barter, as opposed to right now when it's just a testing program. I think there's a big difference to bartering from the position "we have nukes and you don't want us to" compared to "we're going to use our nukes." Maybe China will back away from North Korea at that point, but that remains to be seen. You are worling with the presumption that catastrophic consequenes are not likely. Well, one errant missile on a Japanese city and then what? A border skirmish with SK and then what? So far, Chian has used NK as a toy to keep US, SK and Japan on the defensive. That is why Bush simply ignored NK. Things are progrssing, rather, regrssing to the point that it beomces too dangerous to ignore the kid with the firecracker.....that now has a stick of dynamite. The US can the rules instantly with even the slightest threat of SK/Japan going nuclear. To Chian, it's easier and safer to crush NK then to let any more regional nuclearization happen. I think there's some validity to what appears to be a "give everyone nukes so it evens out" plan, but I don't think it goes anywhere. All it does is expedites whatever endgame exists now. Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lybia.. they all hate Israel and that won't stop just because a bunch of others nations have nukes, too. Is Saudi Arabia going to nuke Iran because they dropped one on Israel? No, of course not. If the end game is a given, why not try to change it before it reaches that point? That is my entire argument. 1....SA will have nukes if Iran does. 2...Iran will continue to persue nukes. 3.....Iran was willing to negotiate them away faced with a real threat. Therefore, create a scenatio that Iran will see a clear threat to their actions. Further.... On of the arguments is the threat to the West from SA nukes. Wil Iran feel one iota safer if those nukes are right next to them? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 27, 2009 22:19:24 GMT -5
That's a lot to digest HA. I can see why you're catching flak for it, but there's some good points in there. Some thoughts on the whole: (1) You seem to be confusing having nuclear weapons and being able to use them. NK is a long way from being able to use their nukes against anyone except China and SK. Maybe - maybe they can lob one into Japan and get lucky, but that's a hell of a long shot. They also have, at most, a handful of devices. It'll be ten years or more before the get the ability to do anything with their weapons (other than detonate them under ground). Iran is ten years behind NK. So we're not looking at something that has to be dealt with on the short term, but something that will have to be managed over a longer time scale than just this year. Do you really want to make policy based on the size of NK nukes? Japan is so close that a medium sized plane can fly 100ftanddeliver destruction at a Nagasaki scale. (2) Handing China control of the situation in NK may not be what we want to do. I don't think what they think will be a good solution would match our opinion. What needs to be done is to get China more involved in a positive way. Make the Chinese understand that if NK misbehaves it'll bring the west to their doorsteps and unless they want a showdown they should want to help keep NK in line. I don't thinking saying to the Chinese "it's your problem, deal with it" will work. At this point, it appears China benefits from an unstable NK. Japan and NK are fully occupied and spend enormous sums monitoring NK. How many SK trpoops are watching the border? At what cost? What Amerivcan costs? Part of the NK solution is to make it unpalatable for China to support them. (3) Ringing Iran with nuclear weapons - not a terrible idea. Putting nuclear weapons in Turkey - tolerable, but not the greatest idea. Putting nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia? Quite possibly suicidal. While the Saudi's are nominally our allies, lets not forget that that great kingdom has given rise to one of the worst anti-West groups in existence today. The last thing you want, IMHO, is to give that nations nukes which may then be turned against us. If an event is going to happen, then why not take an asymmetrical step to stop it? Think of the shockwave in Iran the moment two of their neighbors instantly have access to something they are still trying to develop? Would they still want to develop nukes OR will they be willing to negotiate it away for a braoder, nuclear free security? Alsa see my logic to this assymetrical solution. MAD relies on a mutual understanding of destruction. If someone - like say Muslim Terrorists - views self-destruction in a favourable light (77 virgins and all that jazz) then our house of cards could collapse To that end we should endeavour to keep nukes in the hands of as few people as possible. Are they so cavalier? Why were the mullahs ready to talk when the US was marching up Iraq? |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 27, 2009 23:53:29 GMT -5
You are worling with the presumption that catastrophic consequenes are not likely. Well, one errant missile on a Japanese city and then what? A border skirmish with SK and then what? So far, Chian has used NK as a toy to keep US, SK and Japan on the defensive. That is why Bush simply ignored NK. Things are progrssing, rather, regrssing to the point that it beomces too dangerous to ignore the kid with the firecracker.....that now has a stick of dynamite. The US can the rules instantly with even the slightest threat of SK/Japan going nuclear. To Chian, it's easier and safer to crush NK then to let any more regional nuclearization happen. [/quite] My presumption is because there's little to nothing to gain for North Korea bombing Japan or South Korea. Nor is there much of anything for China to gain from that. There will be consequences. That's all anyone needs to know. There's even a reasonable argument to be made for sharing technology to avoid errant explosions and to be all the more sure any detonation is intended. I think there's some validity to what appears to be a "give everyone nukes so it evens out" plan, but I don't think it goes anywhere. All it does is expedites whatever endgame exists now. Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lybia.. they all hate Israel and that won't stop just because a bunch of others nations have nukes, too. Is Saudi Arabia going to nuke Iran because they dropped one on Israel? No, of course not. If the end game is a given, why not try to change it before it reaches that point? That is my entire argument. 1....SA will have nukes if Iran does. 2...Iran will continue to persue nukes. 3.....Iran was willing to negotiate them away faced with a real threat. Therefore, create a scenatio that Iran will see a clear threat to their actions. Further.... On of the arguments is the threat to the West from SA nukes. Wil Iran feel one iota safer if those nukes are right next to them? Except the prospect of invading Iran is much different than invading Iraq. There's no plausible liberation to be had there. It would actually be an endless occupation (and if some military buffoon says otherwise, he's an idiot) and as such there's no follow through. I think Iran was willing to negotiate their nukes away until they realized the US wouldn't have the follow through, not so much because the threat was any less real. A nuclear threat is also a much different one than a military incursion. Saudi Arabia (especially while the West holds the other key, or whatever, and nor is the US or any Western Allied country) isn't going to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran just because they hold a nuclear weapon. And it's not like their reliquinshment would remove the technical knowledge from their country. Realistically it wouldn't even halt production, only slow it. The end game is a given, and I don't believe holding a gun to anyone's head for all eternity will change it. You clearly spend more time thinking about the situations, and I think they have merit. I guess I'm just the heel on this one. It's not like I can even come up with a better alternative. Just running it through in my head, is all. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 28, 2009 0:21:10 GMT -5
Except the prospect of invading Iran is much different than invading Iraq. There's no plausible liberation to be had there. It would actually be an endless occupation (and if some military buffoon says otherwise, he's an idiot) and as such there's no follow through. I think Iran was willing to negotiate their nukes away until they realized the US wouldn't have the follow through, not so much because the threat was any less real. A nuclear threat is also a much different one than a military incursion. Saudi Arabia (especially while the West holds the other key, or whatever, and nor is the US or any Western Allied country) isn't going to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran just because they hold a nuclear weapon. And it's not like their reliquinshment would remove the technical knowledge from their country. Realistically it wouldn't even halt production, only slow it. The end game is a given, and I don't believe holding a gun to anyone's head for all eternity will change it. . I am no longer advocating invading Iran or even bother to threaten it with it. The US is war weary, in deep financial trouble and the most important thing of all, the euphemistically named "post war peace" is a bigger nightmare. So what other assymetrical solutions are there to bring Iran to the table? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 28, 2009 8:00:40 GMT -5
I have to be very quick on this one. As I said earlier in the thread, Netanyahu has already stated years ago that if the Iranian nuclear program poses a threat to Israel he'll take it out. No one in the Arab League took action against Israel when it took out the Iraqi reactor back in the early 80's. IMO, the Arab League is in such a shambles that I doubt they'd take any action against Israel if they took out the Iranian reactors.
Secondly, if Israel can go ahead and take out Iraqi reactors, what's stopping the USA or they and their allies, from taking out any NK reactors? No war, just a quick, surgical strike aimed directly at the NK nuclear program. The only fallout I can see with that might be Japan and South Korea each becoming as paranoid as Israel. The USA would have to beef up its presence in the area in order to keep both of those countries from blowing a gasket and it's military is already stretched as it is.
Lastly, putting controlled deterrent nukes into the Middle East would only cause another Cold War. It would mean missiles being placed closer to Russia and that wouldn't be on with The Bear. They'd be forced to deploy their own nukes as a deterrent to Uncle Sam's. More bases would be established in the area on both sides, more equipment would be brought in, more soldiers ... it would be Cold War Europe all over again. Don't know if the Arab League would stand for that ... Israel sure would!
However, there would be a lot of money flying around just to make this happen. It might be one way of kicking the world economy in the butt.
Only opinions guys. Going to work.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 28, 2009 8:03:32 GMT -5
Do you really want to make policy based on the size of NK nukes? Japan is so close that a medium sized plane can fly 100ftanddeliver destruction at a Nagasaki scale. Size and ability to deliver them effectively yes. Although it wasn't my point (my point was that the Middle Eastern states are even further from having a usable nuclear device). It's also more than 100'. More like 150 km at their closest. This is still close, and Korean bombers can close that gap in 10-15 minutes (the H-5 that makes up their bomber force has a top speed of 900 km/h) but NK bombers fly low and slow compared to most modern weapons, making them very vulnerable (an easy target for almost all modern AA weaponry and fighter/interceptor jets) if they ever go on an aggressive flight toward Japan. At this point, it appears China benefits from an unstable NK. Japan and NK are fully occupied and spend enormous sums monitoring NK. How many SK trpoops are watching the border? At what cost? What Amerivcan costs? I agree, and didn't dispute (or mention this fact). As I said, what has to be done is that China must be convinced that it's in its own best interest that NK be kept on a tight leash. That's a diplomatic solution to a military problem. It also prevents us from handing the situation whole hog over to China and telling them to fix it. We instead tell them to work with us. Later on, if we can be convinced that China's ideals for NK mesh with our own then we can look for a way to bail out. If an event is going to happen, then why not take an asymmetrical step to stop it? Think of the shockwave in Iran the moment two of their neighbors instantly have access to something they are still trying to develop? Would they still want to develop nukes OR will they be willing to negotiate it away for a braoder, nuclear free security? Alsa see my logic to this assymetrical solution. You don't take the asymmetrical step because that step is far from certain. Hearken back to the days of the Cold War, when the USSR decided it was going to take control of Afghanistan because - well, I suppose it probably had something to do with oil or whatnot. The reason why is not related to the point I'm making. Where things get interesting is when the U.S. took the 'asymmetrical' step of supplying the Mujahadin in Afghanistan with weapons and intelligence to fight the Soviet invader. And it worked, more or less. The Soviets managed to take the cities, but they got beaten to a pulp in the countryside, and their war machine ground to a halt in that land But.... The influx of western weapons (as well as the war itself) created instability in Afghanistan. Warlords rose to power, and the country descended into chaos. Eventually the Taliban came to power, using an extreme view of the Muslim religion to unite the people (and eliminate all those who dissented). And now who is the 'number one' threat to America? The Taliban-sponsored anti-Western militia known as Al Queada. Using American weapons and training against Americans since 1996. There are more examples. Somalia. Iraq. Taking the asymmetrical path does not often work, and more often than not comes back to bite you in the ass. While I agree that placing missiles in Turkey and Saudi Arabia would get the Iranians attention, it's a short term solution without an eye for the long term. What if Turkey becomes belligerent over Kurds in the north of Iraq? What if the fundie nutbags take over the House of Saud? Then they've got good, high yield nuclear weapons that they can easily point at us or our interests and we've handed them to them. Are they so cavalier? Why were the mullahs ready to talk when the US was marching up Iraq? Not all fundie nutcases are created equal. Some go further over the line than others. Do you really want to take that chance? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 29, 2009 0:34:18 GMT -5
Not all fundie nutcases are created equal. Some go further over the line than others. Do you really want to take that chance? I was about 7 ('61) when I learned how to scramble under my desk when the siren went....as if that was going to save us from a nice warm nuke bath. It was great character builder for a 7 year to know that he can be burned alive along with his favorite Dinky car. Now, I have a giant world map at work and home and as a diversion to my head banging fun at work, I sort of get lost in daydreaming about history and geopolitics. Well, when it comes to the ME and wonder what could happen, the geopolitical contortions are simply mind boggling. It makes late European history look as complex as boiling water. The Middle East is the WW (Wide War) that is waiting to happen so unless someone comes along with a bold and decisive plan, it's simply a mattter of time. So what do you do if you know that it's Ground Hog Day From Hell every day with pacifying the ME? Do you raise the stakes and make everyone realize what is REALLY at stake? Do you use the condensed version of the Cold War? Or the Kennedy like brinkmanship? Or raise Ghandi from the grave? Tell you what though, what I do know is that so far, talk, resolution and sanctions are fertilizers, not dousers, and doing nothing is simply letting events overtake us. Anywho.... |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on May 30, 2009 10:04:59 GMT -5
Satellite images show they are preparing to launch another long range missile and the rhetoric escalates. We may see some military action taken there sooner rather than later in some form.
Satellites show North Korea missile preparations
Spy satellites have captured images that appear to show North Korea making preparations to move a long-range missile from a weapons factory to a launch pad in the country's northeast, a South Korean official said Saturday.
CTV.ca News Staff
The images appear to show preparations to move the missile via train from the factory near Pyongyang to the Musudan-ni launch site, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on intelligence matters.
Preparations to launch such a missile would take about two weeks, South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted the official as saying.
The agency said the missile's size was comparable to a long-range rocket that North Korea tested in April.
It is believed that it has a range of more than 6,700 kilometres, which means it could travel as far as Alaska.
On Friday, U.S. officials said they noticed increased activity at the launch site, but provided no details about what they saw.
The new developments come as U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates ratcheted up the rhetoric against North Korea, saying the isolated state must face tougher sanctions from its neighbours in Asia.
Gates said the U.S. is tired of North Korea threatening nuclear war to gain aid and other concessions before then reneging on promises to scale back its nuclear plans.
"They create a crisis and the rest of us pay the price to return to the status quo ante," Gates told the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual meeting of defence and security officials. "As the expression goes in the U.S., I'm tired of buying the same horse twice."
"There are other ways perhaps to get the North Koreans to change their approach," Gates added. "I think this notion that we buy our way back to the status quo ante is an approach that I personally at least think we ought to think very hard about."
North Korea has spent the last five days testing its nuclear weapon capability, including test-launching six short-range missiles.
The show of force has been accompanied by statements that the North will no longer honour the 1953 armistice it signed with South Korea.
On Saturday, North Korea called last Monday's nuclear test an act of self defence.
The Korean Central News Agency said the communist state "will deal decisive and merciless blows at the enemies who desperately run amok to dare pre-empt an attack on it."
The UN Security Council is drafting military and financial sanctions against North Korean in response to the testing. However, similar sanctions in 2006 were not enforced and were largely ignored by North Korea's allies, Russia and China.
On Friday, The Associated Press obtained excerpts of a draft resolution, which calls for the 2006 sanctions to be enforced. These include a partial arms embargo, a ban on luxury goods and ship searches for illegal weapons.
Later Saturday, defence officials from the U.S., Japan and South Korea also met to discuss possible sanctions.
"North Korea perhaps to this point may have mistakenly believed that it could be perhaps rewarded for its wrong behaviours," Lee told reporters. "But that is no longer the case."
With files from The Associated Press
|
|
