TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What the F#ck is N. Korea Doing?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Although it states that a danger of these weapons is that the US may use them to attack terrorist bases, but that idea is ridiculous. There would be no tactical purpose to use such weapons.

Against terrorist bases, it would seem unnecessary. But Bush is no longer planning to attack a terrorist base, he is planning an invasion of a whole country, and here tactical nukes can be useful.

I sincerely appreciate everyone's pitch in on the matter. I especially appreciate those opinions and articles outside the U.S. It's painfully obvious that Bush has done a swell job of alienating many countries with his idiotic foreign policies, and is continuing to do a swell job of alienating his own people with his idiotic economic "stimulus" policies as well.

It's difficult to decifer what's really going on when reading and listening to US media. I always found it rather ironic when I hear conservatives call our media liberal, when in fact the US media are mostly run by huge corporate conglamorates with ties to corporate money and lobbyism. The propaganda that's being run is starting to wear on many people here in the states, and I think many are beginning to see through it. The % of people thinking it's wrong to go to war in Iraq without UN backing increasing tremendously is just 1 example. But all this is a little off the subject.

I'm not sure what the war of words will do either side much good. But it seems that N. Korea really doesn't give a sh#t either way. To even make the threat of WWIII is absolutely crazy! Yet their leader makes it as if they're ready and willing to have millions killed. Did the previous Korean War not teach anyone anything? Why did either side fight that war if it brings us to such times of turmoil? Even though it looks as though things may be avoided with the headlines today, both sides better wake up soon!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Against terrorist bases, it would seem unnecessary. But Bush is no longer planning to attack a terrorist base, he is planning an invasion of a whole country, and here tactical nukes can be useful.

Sure they could be useful but think about it ... using them would be more trouble than they're worth. First of all ... the US would NOT use nuclear weapons unless attacked first with weapons of mass destruction, it would go against their own self-interest. Secondly, tactical nuclear weapons would only be useful if US forces were tactically outnumbered and outgunned on the battlefield. The scenario those weapons were designed for would be 50+ soviet tank divisions crossing into western Europe, numerically outgunning the US and European divisions. Although the US had better technology that advantage is diminished by the multitude of tanks the Soviets had. Similar to how the superb German tiger tanks couldn't match up to the number of shermans and t-34 tanks they faced up against. However in the present day ... we have supremely better technology, and numerical superiority in air and sea if not land. What's the point of using a bazooka when a bb gun would suffice?

quote:

the US would NOT use nuclear weapons unless attacked first with weapons of mass destruction, it would go against their own self-interest.

Well, suppose that Iraq has WOMD, and attempts to use them as a last resort.

quote:

we have supremely better technology, and numerical superiority in air and sea if not land. What's the point of using a bazooka when a bb gun would suffice?

A tactical nuke could disable whole military base that contains WOMDs with one shot. Especially useful if the weapons are underground.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, suppose that Iraq has WOMD, and attempts to use them as a last resort. A tactical nuke could disable whole military base that contains WOMDs with one shot. Especially useful if the weapons are underground.

So are you saying that if Iraq attempts to use weapons of mass destruction as a last resort that the US should stand by and do NOTHING? What if the US has tried everything to prevent such an instance and Iraq chooses to use them in an act of vengeance? You may critisize the US for not taking the moral highground but what if that highground sinks down to below sea level?

With regards to your second statement, that situation would not happen. Iraq doesn't have battlehardened nuclear silos capable of withstanding a 4000 pound bunker busting bomb. They don't have nuclear silos period. Their capabilities are short ranged, mobile scud missile launchers and air dropped bombs. Either of which can be dealt with using conventional weapons.

Look Tito, I respect your arguments, and I feel that you always make a valid point backed up by facts, but I feel that you're barking up the wrong tree on this nuclear issue. The US has had nuclear weapons in its arsenal for decades with its sole use as a DETERRANT against an attack of weapons of like kind (If you would like we could argue the the issue of Japan in a separate topic ... I could talk about WW2 for months). If Iraq were to aquire nuclear weapons there would be no telling what they would do with them. They are clearly anti-semetic would they use them to bomb Israel? They are clearly aggressive, would they use them to seize power in the Middle East? Finally Saddam appears to mentally unbalanced, sadistic, cruel, vengeafull, and unremorsefull. Granted Bush is an idiot but Saddam is ... a wild card. I would entrust 500 nukes in the hands of N. Korea than more than 1 in the hands of Saddam. There are some people that are approachable with discussion, and then there are some people that have almost hitler-like qualities about them. Argue what you will but the history and the legacy that that man has left behind is disturbing.

quote:

I would entrust 500 nukes in the hands of N. Korea than more than 1 in the hands of Saddam.

Well Occrider, ya had me there up to this point. I know you were making a point, and I don't want to play a game of semantics here, but the whole point of me starting this thread was to talk about the lunacy of N. Korea's leader. Are you by chance in the military? You both really started talking about military tactics there. I know you both have philosophical points being made when referring to tactics, but I guess I was thinking more diplomatically.

But that brings me up to my second question: will the U.S. continue to do things diplomatically with N. Korea, or will they "flex their bulging military muscle" and bully them around to get N. Korea to bend? Right now at this moment it seems that the U.S. is continuing to handle things diplomatically, but do you think with the current regime on both sides that this will last? Given our stance with Iraq (and the continual buildup of military presence over there), is Bush and his warmongering posse really the kind of people that knows how to handle anything diplomatically?

its hard for the US to "flex its muscles" in that region. You have China and Russia that wouldn't be too happy having more US bases in the region...

That's why North Korea is taunting the US. They are calling America's bluff, exposing the US as weak and reinforcing the popular view that the US is interested in Iraq because it is oil-rich and a relatively easy target.

quote:

So are you saying that if Iraq attempts to use weapons of mass destruction as a last resort that the US should stand by and do NOTHING? What if the US has tried everything to prevent such an instance and Iraq chooses to use them in an act of vengeance? You may critisize the US for not taking the moral highground but what if that highground sinks down to below sea level?

I agree that if Saddam is about to launch WOMDs, and there's no other way to stop it, nukes should be used as a last resort. But I was more trying to make a point that tactical nukes still have their uses.
Anyway, in that scenario, Saddam would use WOMDs as a retaliation because of the US assault, so the moral high ground of the US is very questionable here.

quote:

I would entrust 500 nukes in the hands of N. Korea than more than 1 in the hands of Saddam.

I definitely wouldn't agree about this one. Kim Jong Il's sanity is highly questionable as well. Remember that his people were literally starving to death while he refused foreign aid. Also, he is launching his missiles into territorial waters of other countries, and is forbidding the separated families to rejoin for more than 50 years. Say all that you will about Saddam, but compared to KJI, he's pretty normal.

i'm just glad we dont see rederic like this in America
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../168/31f5s.html
i belive this shows something very powerful about the north koreans

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well Occrider, ya had me there up to this point. I know you were making a point, and I don't want to play a game of semantics here, but the whole point of me starting this thread was to talk about the lunacy of N. Korea's leader. Are you by chance in the military? You both really started talking about military tactics there. I know you both have philosophical points being made when referring to tactics, but I guess I was thinking more diplomatically. But that brings me up to my second question: will the U.S. continue to do things diplomatically with N. Korea, or will they "flex their bulging military muscle" and bully them around to get N. Korea to bend? Right now at this moment it seems that the U.S. is continuing to handle things diplomatically, but do you think with the current regime on both sides that this will last? Given our stance with Iraq (and the continual buildup of military presence over there), is Bush and his warmongering posse really the kind of people that knows how to handle anything diplomatically?

Hehe nope not associated with the military in any way whatsoever. As a matter of fact I was a dip(lomat) brat rather than an army brat and I grew up in Europe (and consider myself more Euroean than American) for the majority of my youth. I am simply a HUGE history buff that specializes in European history and military warfare in general. The only reason why I wasn't a history major in school was because I recognized the fact that historians don't make much money and that I could just as easily be learned in that field by reading rather than making it my job. I can assure you though that the use of nuclear weapons will always come from the political level rather than the military level. Nuclear weapons are now a weapon of politics. Under our current circumstances, everything that a nuke can accomplish can be acomplished through the use of conventional weapons. So despite Tito's declaration that there is still a TACTICAL use for nuclear weapons I think that that statement is false. There has not been a single loss of a US warplane since the gulf war, so what would prevent us from simply bombing any obstacle that presented itself to oblivion? What kind of advantage would the US gain from using such weapons? Tactical nuclear weapons are merely a throwback to the cold war that grew obsolete over time.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I definitely wouldn't agree about this one. Kim Jong Il's sanity is highly questionable as well. Remember that his people were literally starving to death while he refused foreign aid. Also, he is launching his missiles into territorial waters of other countries, and is forbidding the separated families to rejoin for more than 50 years. Say all that you will about Saddam, but compared to KJI, he's pretty normal.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not supporting N korea in any way wahtsoever. I think that he's a nutcase much like sadam but he has less power in N. korea than saddam has in Iraq. Essentially, Saddam's wishes are the word of God in Iraq, whereas in North Korea, the assembly of the communist party has popular control. In the very least, the politburo maintains some semblance of control such that a madman isn't running the entirety of the country.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider There has not been a single loss of a US warplane since the gulf war

Sorry to burst in here with some anal remarks but wasn't there, at least, a stealth bomber/fighter shut down over former Yugoslavia? I remember it since it was all over the news here with pictures and everything. It looked kind of funny because some local serbia militia men where posing in front of some large chunks of the plane. It looked like this little ragg-tagged group of people shut down the hi-tech war plane with a simple rifle.

DJ Irish the issue of Kosovo was a very dubious one. The Serbs claimed a great many Nato aircraft were shot down, and some Western journalists concluded the same. If I remember correctly, one respected Western journalist put the figure at 28 aircraft. Meanwhile, the US iirc admitted to losing a Stealth Bomber and 2 F-16s.

Clearly there is a huge discrepency here, but I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. The main point to be said about Kosovo though wasn't the aircraft lost, but the fact that the mission was a catastrophic failure.

And although it isn't "warplanes" occrider, you could also include the helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia. A total of 6 choppers iirc were shot down while the US was there. Each helicopter cost millions of dollars and was shot down by a simple $300 rocket.

All this talk of blowing anything you want to smithereens is a bit far-fetched. The US has very accurate missiles, but they are not cheap. A tomahawk cruise missile costs over $1 million per missile.

If you think the US fights wars like this you are fooling yourself. In the 42 days of the Gulf War the US dropped over 88,000 tons of bombs on Iraq -- exceeding the 47,000 tons dropped in the forty five months of the Second World War. 93% of those dropped in the Gulf War were 'dumb' gravity bombs.

about that issue... there was a Pentagone briefing a while after that war and they stated that the total of the damage they done to the serbian army (tanks, artillery, etc.) and the figures were lot less than what they stated during the war. one explanation of this it was because the Serbian were using decoys big time... or the damage reports were a lie... I wish I could find that report again

moral of the story? one most always keep in mind that those damage report are always inacurate from both sides...

The Serbs used a lot of fake tanks, even fake bridges. An aeriel campaign by itself speaks to the enemy not of strength but of weakness - I don't find it surprising the Serbs used a lot of bluff tactics, the NATO airplanes were instructed not to fly below 15,000 feet for fear of being shot down.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard Meanwhile, the US iirc admitted to losing a Stealth Bomber and 2 F-16s. Gulf War were 'dumb' gravity bombs.

it wasnt a b2 stealth bomber it was an f117 stealth fighter. very big difference. on the nuke subject yes the US has theater nukes or small yeilding nukes. you guys should see some of the things we tried to develope in the midts of the cold war ( shoulder launched nukes.... WTF) anyways there is a certain item that has been discussed on being used in iraq its called a b61-11. basically if you guys remeber the bunker busters form the gulf war these are bombs dropped on underground targets and explode in the ground. well saddam has a very strong almost inpenatrable bunker that this type of weapon is designed for. would we use it i highly doubt it do to world opinion.

onto NK it was stated earleir the country is in shambles and its current regime is playing wag the dog perfect anology. They have no first strike wepaons which can reach the US and if they even tried a convential attack they wouldnt get too far

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen it wasnt a b2 stealth bomber it was an f117 stealth fighter. very big difference.

I'm aware of the differences, I made a typing error. But thanks for the correction.

quote:

anyways there is a certain item that has been discussed on being used in iraq its caleld its called a b61-11. basically if you guys remeber the bunker busters form the gulf war these are bombs dropped on underground targets and explode in the ground. well saddam has a very strong almost inpenatrable bunker that this type of weapon is designed for.

What differences does this have to the Paveway missiles?

it has a nuke tip on it

quote:

Essentially, Saddam's wishes are the word of God in Iraq, whereas in North Korea, the assembly of the communist party has popular control. In the very least, the politburo maintains some semblance of control such that a madman isn't running the entirety of the country.

First of all, Stalin also had a politburo and it liked his ideas more than he himself did. Saddam also has a government, ministers, etc. Anyway, existance of a formal government doesn't guarantee anything. I would like one of KJI's ministers decide against his wishes, and see how long he lives. Besides, in NK, population is more supportive of KJI than it is for Saddam in Iraq. Also, KJI's sanity is more questionable than Saddams, because Saddam at least wants to trade oil for food, and wants to get sanctions lifted, while KJI didn't accept foreing aid and thousands of people died, just because KJI wants 100% sovereignity. Add to that that NK posesses nukes and missiles with long enough range to reach Japan and US west coast, and I think we see who the bigger threat is. The previous clinton government had NK and Al Quaeda on top of it's danger list, while Iraq was at the bottom, while Bush now reversed situation. How many assaults has Iraq made on US after the gulf war? 0! And how many has AQ made? I can name at least 5.

Just a note, I've just read Madeline Albright interview, and she also thinks Iraq is no threat compared to the other two.

Personally I agree that NK is more of a danger right now then Iraq but its also a more intricate situation that needs to be approached differently then how we are handling the iraqis. and as far as clintons foriegn policy towards things... well lol it sucked to put it bluntly. Hes part of the reason we are in this mess but thats another thread.
NK has no capability to touch the US in a military way, their medium range missles cant reach our west coast but Japan and US terrortories like Guam is a different story. I can not beleive china has stepped in and taken this guy by the balls and explained to him how things really work in the world now.Diplomacy should always be given its shot and right now i dont think all diplomatic avenues has be tried. Things will settle down NK cant support itself too long if its cut off even more from the rest of the wolrd

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 First of all, Stalin also had a politburo and it liked his ideas more than he himself did. Saddam also has a government, ministers, etc. Anyway, existance of a formal government doesn't guarantee anything. I would like one of KJI's ministers decide against his wishes, and see how long he lives. Besides, in NK, population is more supportive of KJI than it is for Saddam in Iraq. Also, KJI's sanity is more questionable than Saddams, because Saddam at least wants to trade oil for food, and wants to get sanctions lifted, while KJI didn't accept foreing aid and thousands of people died, just because KJI wants 100% sovereignity. Add to that that NK posesses nukes and missiles with long enough range to reach Japan and US west coast, and I think we see who the bigger threat is. The previous clinton government had NK and Al Quaeda on top of it's danger list, while Iraq was at the bottom, while Bush now reversed situation. How many assaults has Iraq made on US after the gulf war? 0! And how many has AQ made? I can name at least 5. Just a note, I've just read Madeline Albright interview, and she also thinks Iraq is no threat compared to the other two.

You're making the wrong comparison. Yes Stalin had a politburo, yet he had complete control of his government. THAT case is most comparable to Sadam Hussein. There essentially is no input from anybody in Iraq except for Sadam. The N. Korean government is most akin to the chinese government or later Soviet governments. Yes the president has a significant amount of power, but by no means is all the power consolidated in one man. In N. Korea KJI is not making all the decisions on his own volition. He's following the party platform and the policies established by the politburo. Additionally, bear in mind that China has a HUGE role in N. Korea policy making. China will not back a N. Korean aggressive policy against Japan or S. Korea.

With regards to your second statement about the bush administration shifting focus from N. Korea and AQ from Iraq ... bear in mind ALL are considered high priority threats. Just because Clinton designated AQ and N. Korea as more of a threat than Iraq, doesn't mean that we shouldn't adapt and recognize GROWING threats. Are you advocating that we should be blind to the developements around us and maintain a static environment? Also take into account the fact that N. Korea has maintained the status quo in its region for over 50 years while Iraq has aggressively attempted to expand its borders over the duration of the past 20 years.

occrider, I agree with you about Stalin's politburo of 'yes men' but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We forged an alliance with Stalin after he'd purged millions of his own people. I also think it's difficult to make any comparisons between Stalin and Hussein that are much more than mere speculation. Before 1985 Western historians could only speculate about Stalin's intentions and had little idea of what was going on in Russia other than that which was contained in the Smolensk acrhives. They were also forced to make the naive assumption that what had happened in Smolensk was representative of the country as a whole. The sheer amount of contradictions floating around the media about Iraq suggests we don't know the full truth, we only know that it's very, very grim. Aside that point, from what we do know, they may share a few basic characteristics, but the situations are incomparable.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard occrider, I agree with you about Stalin's politburo of 'yes men' but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We forged an alliance with Stalin after he'd purged millions of his own people. I also think it's difficult to make any comparisons between Stalin and Hussein that are much more than mere speculation. Before 1985 Western historians could only speculate about Stalin's intentions and had little idea of what was going on in Russia other than that which was contained in the Smolensk acrhives. They were also forced to make the naive assumption that what had happened in Smolensk was representative of the country as a whole. The sheer amount of contradictions floating around the media about Iraq suggests we don't know the full truth, we only know that it's very, very grim. Aside that point, from what we do know, they may share a few basic characteristics, but the situations are incomparable.

The alliance forged between Stalin and western nations was one of necessity forged at a time of desperation against a common foe. Keep in mind that this alliance was never "solid". Distrust continued throughout WW2 and political maneuverings were going on before the war even ended. And of course nobody even knew about the Stalin purges until he was succeeded. I agree with your statements that its impossible to know the true nature of the iraqi government at this time though. From the outside perspective however it appears that he's cultivating a cult of personality most akin to that of hitler or stalin.

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior A U.S. nuclear review published in January indicated that following Sept. 11 the United States is keeping all its options open, including the possible development and testing of new nuclear weapons.

oh god... stupid, why new nukes... makes no sense, then we shouldn't have gotten rid of the ones we had from before if we realized we are going to build more later.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.