norh korea

[GhOsT55]

TOKYO - North Korea asserted it has full autonomy to conduct missile tests, and outsiders do not have the right to criticize its plans, Japan's Kyodo News agency reported Tuesday.
Before the latest statement, North Korea's apparent moves toward test launching a long-range ballistic missile already spiked tensions in the region and drew warnings of serious repercussions from the United States and others.
In Paris, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said any North Korean missile test must draw "firm and just" international response. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged North Korean leaders to "listen to and hear what the world is saying."
Earlier Tuesday, North Korea lashed out at the United States over its plans to build a missile defense shield but did not directly address concerns that it was preparing to test-fire a missile capable of reaching the United States.
There were conflicting reports about whether a missile launch was imminent.
Japan's public broadcaster NHK said Tuesday that satellite images showed fueling vehicles still positioned around the suspected launch site in the country's northeast, but workers spotted near the head of the missile Monday weren't visible Tuesday.
The launch site appears to be guarded by about 1,000 troops, the report added.
U.S. officials in Washington said Monday the missile was apparently fully assembled and fueled, but Japan's Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Jinen Nagase said Tuesday he could not confirm that fueling had been completed.
South Korea's spy agency also believes North Korea hasn't yet completed fueling the rocket because the 40 fuel tanks seen around a launch site weren't enough to fuel a projectile estimated to be 65 tons, Yonhap news agency reported, quoting lawmakers who attended an intelligence briefing.
Bad weather over the purported launch site in North Korea on Tuesday also dimmed chances of an immediate launch. The area was cloudy, with rain expected through Wednesday morning, said South's Korea Meteorological Administration.
Kyodo News quoted an unidentified official from the North Korean Foreign Ministry as saying that Pyongyang did not regard itself as bound by prior agreements to refrain from missile testing.
"Our actions are not bound by the Pyongyang Declaration, the joint declaration made at the six-party talks in September last year or any other statements," Kyodo quoted the official as telling Japanese reporters in North Korea.
The official said his remarks represented Pyongyang's official line on the matter, Kyodo said.
There was nothing in Tuesday's Kyodo report to explain Pyongyang's declaration.
An agreement reached at six-party nuclear disarmament talks in September does not specifically address missile tests by the North. However, negotiators pledged to work toward establishing peace in the region. The six countries participating in the talks _ the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States _ also agreed to work toward normalizing relations.
North Korea and Japan agreed in 2002 to place a moratorium on missile tests.
On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned the North that it will face consequences if it launches a missile, calling it a "very serious matter."
North Korea responded Tuesday by saying that U.S. moves to build a missile shield are fueling a dangerous arms race in space.
"The world is not allowed to avert its face from the grave situation in which it is facing the danger of a nuclear shower from the blue sky," the North's Minju Joson newspaper wrote in a commentary, according to the country's Korean Central News Agency.
North Korea also criticized a Japanese move to buy missiles and associated equipment from the U.S. to upgrade its missile defense system, claiming it showed an intent to become "a military giant" and mount "overseas aggression," the North's main newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said in commentary carried by KCNA.
As tensions grew, meanwhile, the U.S. staged war games in the western Pacific on Tuesday with 22,000 troops, 280 aircraft and three aircraft carriers.
U.S. officials have said the missile, believed to be a Taepodong-2, has a firing range of 9,300 miles and could reach as far as the U.S. West Coast. Most analysts, however, say North Korea is still a long way from perfecting technology that would make the missile accurate and capable of carrying a nuclear payload.
The North's missile program has been a major security concern in the region, adding to worries about its pursuit of nuclear bombs. North Korea shocked its neighbors when it test-fired an earlier missile version over northern Japan in 1998.
In Seoul on Tuesday, Woo Sang-ho, a spokesman for South Korea's ruling party, said, "The government explained to North Korea the serious repercussions a missile launch would bring and strongly demanded that test fire plans be scrapped."
The U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Alexander Vershbow, said the U.S. would like to achieve normal relations with the North, saying a missile test "would only further compound North Korea's isolation and put it more apart from the international community."
China, the North's staunchest ally, said it had "taken note of the report that North Korea is likely to fire a missile," according to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu. She declined to elaborate further.
Japan has said that a new launch would threaten Japanese security and violate an agreement North Korea signed in 2002 and reaffirmed in 2004. Rice said it would also end a self-imposed moratorium on test firings that North Korea has observed since 1999 and a disarmament bargain it struck with the United States and other powers last year.
After its last long-range missile launch in August 1998, the North had said it was seeking to put a satellite in orbit. Pyongyang is widely expected to make a similar claim if it goes ahead with another test launch.
North Korea claims it has nuclear weapons, but isn't believed to have a design that would be small and light enough to top a missile. The North has boycotted international nuclear talks since November over a U.S. crackdown on its alleged illegal financial activity.
Despite the latest standoff, North and South Korea opened two days of meetings in the North Korean border city of Kaesong on Tuesday to work out details over expanding a joint industrial zone there. Some experts believe the South would curtail its economic cooperation with the North in the event of a missile launch.
Former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung is also set to travel to Pyongyang next week to reprise the historic June 2000 summit between leaders from the North and South, although the reports of a possible missile test were complicating the arrangements, one of the former president's aides said Monday.

i dont kno where this fits in under navel stuff but i just thought i'd show it

[SeaQueen]

i dont kno where this fits in under navel stuff but i just thought i'd show it

Sure it does. Ballistic missile defence is a mission that the Navy does. One might be able to use news like this to base a scenario off of.

[GhOsT55]

:o :o :o :hmm:

[GhOsT55]

if any one has comcast just look for north korea now the us has its missile defence system and would north korea be so stipuid to launch it i belive the missile is a tapydong-2 cappable of hitting the west coast
and norad is probley at def-con 2 or 3

[shift-E]

Sure it does. Ballistic missile defence is a mission that the Navy does. One might be able to use news like this to base a scenario off of.

There already is a stock TBMD Quick-mission for the FFG (escorting BMD-capable Aegis CG).

Played it last night:hmm:

[Kurushio]

Kim Willy Wong is feeling neglected now all the attention has shifted to Iran (ha ha poor showing in the World Cup old chaps!). He's like a little kid throwing tantrums...countries like Iran, North Korea etc is the every day equivalent of the patients running the asylum. Should we still be surprised when they soil their underwear....or threaten to, anyway?

[LuftWolf]

The problem is not nations like Iran and North Korea.

The problem are the international entities and corrupt 1st world nations that don't have the spine to sustain their own cultures.

Iran and North Korea bark and the whole world flutters about like a bridge club.

What a farce.

Cheers,
David

[GhOsT55]

MORE INFO

SEOUL, South Korea - South Korea's defense minister said Thursday that Seoul believes North Korea's missile launch is not imminent despite concern in the region that the communist nation would test-fire a long-range missile.
"It is our judgment that a launch is not imminent," Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung told a parliamentary meeting in comments confirmed by his ministry.
Worries over a possible North Korean launch have grown in recent weeks after reports of activity at the country's launch site on its northeastern coast where U.S. officials say a Taepodong-2 missile _ believed capable of reaching parts of the United States _ is possibly being fueled.
Yoon said if the North fires a missile toward South Korean territory, combined U.S. and South Korean forces will be ready to intercept it.
Japan and the United States have issued strong statements of concern and have sent ships and planes to monitor the communist nation.
China on Thursday issued its strongest statement of concern over a possible launch, while Pyongyang warned of clashes in the skies as it accused U.S. spy planes of repeated illegal intrusions.
Beijing is the North's last major ally and key benefactor, and Washington has urged China to press the North to back down on its potential missile test.
"We are very concerned about the current situation," Jiang Yu, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official, said at a regular briefing in Beijing. "We hope all parties can do more in the interest of regional peace and stability."
Jiang said China would "continue to make constructive efforts."
President Bush praised China on Wednesday for "taking responsibility in dealing with North Korea."
The North's test of a long-range missile in 1998 shocked Japan and prompted it to accelerate work with Washington on a joint missile defense system.
The communist nation has been under a self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile tests since 1999, when its relations with the United States were relatively friendly. However, it has since test-fired short-range missiles many times, including two in March.
There are diverging expert opinions on whether fueling would mean a launch was imminent _ due to the highly corrosive nature of the fuel _ or whether the North could wait a month or more.
A North Korean diplomat said in reported comments Wednesday that the country wanted to engage in talks with Washington over its concerns of a possible missile test. The Bush administration rejected the overture, saying threats aren't the way to seek dialogue.
"You don't normally engage in conversations by threatening to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles," U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said.
The U.S. instead called on North Korea to return to six-nation talks on its nuclear program.
Bolton said he was continuing discussions with U.N. Security Council members on possible action, and had met with Russia's U.N. ambassador. Washington is weighing responses to a potential test that could include trying to shoot down the missile, U.S. officials have said.
China said all parties should focus on finding a peaceful solution and also urged the North to return to the nuclear talks.
The sides should "be determined to realize a nuclear-free Korean peninsula," Jiang said. "China stands ready to work with relevant parties in the international community to press ahead with the process."
The North agreed at the those talks in September to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees and aid, but no progress has been made on implementing the accord.
North Korea has issued repeated complaints in recent weeks about alleged U.S. spy flights, including off the coast where the missile test facility is located.
"The U.S. imperialist warmongers have been intensifying military provocations" against the North, the country's official Korean Central News Agency said. "The ceaseless illegal intrusion of the planes has created a grave danger of military conflict in the air above the region."
The U.S. has sent ships off the Korean coast capable of detecting and tracking a missile launch, a Pentagon official said. South Korean aircraft have also been flying reconnaissance over the waters between the Korean Peninsula and Japan, said the military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject.
Japan said it, too, had sent naval ships and patrol planes to monitor the developments in North Korea, while playing down Pyongyang's capacity to load a nuclear warhead on its rockets.
The North has claimed to have a nuclear weapon, but isn't thought to have an advanced design that could be placed on a warhead. Japanese Senior Vice Foreign Minister Yasuhisa Shiozaki backed that belief at the parliamentary hearing.
"At this point, we have encountered no information that indicates North Korea has the technology," he said.
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso vowed to continue efforts to persuade North Korea not to launch the missile.
"It's crucial to get North Korea to restrain itself from a missile launch," Aso said. "We should gather efforts before it happens, not afterward."
Japanese police were preparing for a "worst-case scenario," including the possibility that parts of a missile could fall on Japan, said Iwao Uruma, commissioner general of the National Police Agency.
About 1,000 people, including army veterans and activists, staged an anti-North Korea rally in Seoul, condemning the missile threat.
The two Koreas remain technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.

[GhOsT55]

more stuff


The United States said Thursday that a U.S. missile-defense system under development has "limited operational capability" to protect against weapons such as the long-range missile North Korea is said to be near firing.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley underscored U.S. calls for North Korea to abandon any plans for testing the missile believed capable of reaching U.S. soil.
"We're watching it very carefully and preparations are very far along," Hadley said when asked about South Korea's assessment that a launch was not imminent.
"So you could, from a capability standpoint, have a launch," Hadley said. "Now what they intend to do _ which is what a lot of people are trying to read _ of course we don't know. What we hope they will do is give it up and not launch."
In Washington, a top Pentagon official said Thursday that a missile launch would be "a provocation and a dangerous action" that would lead the United States to impose "some cost" on North Korea.
Peter Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, told a House Armed Services Committee hearing that he did not know if such a launch would happen. If it did, Rodman said the administration would take some action, but he did not specify what it would be.
"If such a launch takes place we would seek to impose some cost on North Korea," Rodman said. "That is the minimum response that you would expect of us."
"A launch of a missile would be a provocation and a dangerous action which would have to have some consequences," he said.
Col. Robert Carr, assistant director of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also told lawmakers that "preparations continue" for a possible launch. He declined to speak further on the subject in public, telling lawmakers he would brief them on the matter in a closed session.
Hadley, who briefed reporters while traveling with President Bush in Europe, also spurned a suggestion by former Defense Secretary William Perry that the United States launch a pre-emptive strike against the North Korean missile.
"We think diplomacy is the right answer and that is what we are pursuing," Hadley said when asked about Perry's recommendation in an opinion article published Thursday in The Washington Post.
"The way out of this is for North Korea to decide not to test this missile," Hadley said.
The United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on missile defense systems during the past few decades.
"We have a missile defense system ... what we call a long-range missile defense system that is basically a research, development, training, test kind of system," Hadley said. "It does ... have some limited operational capability. And the purpose, of course, of a missile defense system is to defend .... the territory of the United States from attack."
Hadley said it was hard to say what North Korea would do.
"In terms of North Korean intentions, you know this is a very opaque society, and very hard to read," he said.
"What we need to do is look at their capabilities and that's what we're trying to do," Hadley said.
He said a missile test would disrupt the stalled six-party talks about North Korea's nuclear program.
In the op-ed, Perry said the Bush administration should strike and destroy the missile before it can be launched. Perry noted the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emption, which it used as the basis for sending U.S. troops into Iraq in 2003.
"Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched," Perry said in the piece, co-written with Ashton B. Carter, Perry's assistant at the Pentagon.

[GhOsT55]

more


The U.S. suggested Thursday it has limited ability to shoot a North Korean missile out of the sky and spurned suggestions of a pre-emptive strike on the ground. Still, it warned the Koreans would pay a cost for a missile launch.
The solution, said President Bush's national security adviser, is for the North to "give it up and not launch" the long-range missile that the U.S. believes is being fueled and prepared.
"We think diplomacy is the right answer and that is what we are pursuing," Steven Hadley told reporters.
The words came as tensions persisted over North Korea's apparent preparations to test-fire a Taepodong-2 missile _ and amid disagreements over U.S. military options for responding. The missile, with a believed range of up to 9,300 miles, is potentially capable of reaching the mainland United States.
A Pentagon official said Pyongyang risked unspecified retaliation in proceeding.
"If such a launch takes place, we would seek to impose some cost on North Korea," Peter Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, told the House Armed Services Committee.
Vice President Dick Cheney brushed aside a suggestion by former Defense Secretary William Perry that the Korean missile be obliterated at the launch site.
"I appreciate Bill's advice," Cheney said in an interview with CNN. "I think, obviously, if you're going to launch strikes at another nation, you'd better be prepared to not just fire one shot. And the fact of the matter is I think the issue is being addressed appropriately."
Cheney said that North Korea's "missile capabilities are fairly rudimentary" and that "their test flights in the past haven't been notably successful. But we are watching it with interest and following it very closely."
Missile defense experts disagreed on current U.S. ability to destroy such a missile once it is fired. But they seemed in agreement that shooting at it _ and missing _ would be a huge embarrassment.
"Either it won't work, in which case you've just undermined the rationale for the system. Or if it does work, you have created an even bigger international crisis," said Ivo Daalder, a White House national security aide in the Clinton administration.
"Even when you do intercept it, there's the real question of what have you done? These are international waters. Is this an act of war?" said Daalder, now a foreign policy and missile-defense specialist at the Brookings Institution.
Loren Thompson, a defense consultant at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said there are "two basic problems" with trying to shoot down a Korean missile.
"Our system is barely operational. And the impact on Korean perceptions if we miss could be counterproductive," Thompson said.
"Bombs work a lot better than missile defense systems," Thompson added, echoing Perry's suggestion for a pre-emptive air strike.
In an opinion article in Thursday's Washington Post, Perry and former assistant defense secretary Ashton B. Carter wrote that Bush should immediately declare that the U.S. would destroy the missile before it could be fired.
"Diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature," wrote Perry and Carter. Both served in the Clinton administration.
Hadley, the president's national security adviser, brushed aside such suggestions.
When asked if the U.S. would consider launching such a strike on the launch site on Korea's northeastern coast, Hadley responded: "We hope it (North Korea) would come back to the table, and we hope it would be a little sobered by the unanimous message that the international community has sent."
International talks to persuade North Korea to restrict its nuclear program have not been held since last November. The five other nations party to the talks _ the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea _ have all strongly urged the North not to launch the missile.
Hadley, who briefed reporters in Budapest, Hungary, during a Bush visit, expressed some reservations about the ability of the United States to intercept and destroy such a missile, noting that the U.S. missile defense system was still in an early stage.
"It is a research development and testing capability that has some limited operational capability," Hadley said.
The missile defense system, which now includes advanced radar and interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California, has suffered repeated test failures since Bush ordered the program accelerated in early 2001.
Under the program, interceptor missiles are designed to strike and destroy incoming ballistic missiles.
The Pentagon has developed a rudimentary system that it says is capable of defending against a limited number of missiles in an emergency _ with a North Korean attack particularly in mind.
Some $91 billion has been spent over the past two decades on the program first proposed by President Reagan, according to congressional auditors.
"If the North Koreans fire the missile and the president chooses to launch an interceptor, the administration has an odd set of options," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the private Arms Control Association.
"If it hits the missile, will the North Koreans consider that an act of war? And if the interceptor misses the North Korean test missile, it would simply illustrate the fact that we spent tens of billions of dollars for a system that's not effective _ even against one missile from one known launch point."

[SeaQueen]

There already is a stock TBMD Quick-mission for the FFG (escorting BMD-capable Aegis CG).

Played it last night:hmm:

Yeah... but I don't like that one.

[Fish]

The country with the most firepower the world ever saw is rejecting a small country to light a new years rocket. :shifty:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-212.jpg

[goldorak]

if any one has comcast just look for north korea now the us has its missile defence system and would north korea be so stipuid to launch it i belive the missile is a tapydong-2 cappable of hitting the west coast
and norad is probley at def-con 2 or 3

Honestly i don't think that norad would go defcon 2 for a ballistic missile test.
The only time america went defcon 2 was during the cuba missile crisis and that was a "little" more dangerous than 1 single missile test.
They could be at defcon 4, even defcon 3 is highly improbable.

[Captain Norman]

i dont kno where this fits in under navel stuff but i just thought i'd show it

Sure it does. Ballistic missile defence is a mission that the Navy does. One might be able to use news like this to base a scenario off of.
Ooh, that would be cool if someone made a scenario in which u launch a missile strike against a launch pad. That would be cool.

[Kurushio]

The country with the most firepower the world ever saw is rejecting a small country to light a new years rocket. :shifty:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-212.jpg

That "new years rocket" can hold multiple nuclear weapons and probably destroy the Netherlands quite easily. ;)

[LuftWolf]

The country with the most firepower the world ever saw is rejecting a small country to light a new years rocket. :shifty:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-212.jpg

As long as we are feeding their people, the rights of North Korea are not a priority.

NK has done nothing to earn its place in the global community, other than being granted powers the reality of its existence never justified.

[goldorak]

[
As long as we are feeding their people, the rights of North Korea are not a priority.

NK has done nothing to earn its place in the global community, other than being granted powers the reality of its existence never justified.
Just who came up with the division of the corean peninsula after world war 2 ?

[Kurushio]

[ Just who came up with the division of the corean peninsula after world war 2 ?

The UN?

[GhOsT55]

more stuff

Many Asian nations would cheer if the Americans shot down a long-range missile tested by North Korea, but a failure would raise unsettling questions for allies that rely on the U.S. military umbrella.
The response to North Korea is being watched by U.S. allies as a barometer of how committed Washington is to protecting them. Some already worry the drawn-out conflict in Iraq may make the United States wary of getting involved in other foreign conflicts.
The U.S. government has said it is relying on diplomacy to head off the suspected test, but there has been speculation it might use its fledgling missile defense system. The Taepodong-2 is believed capable of reaching the American mainland, which is troubling for U.S. officials because North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons.
If the U.S. shot down the missile, "the Japanese would see it as proof that the Japan-U.S. alliance is reliable, and feel confident that the United States will come to the rescue," said Takehiko Yamamoto, international politics professor at Waseda University in Tokyo.
A successful strike would also lead to more calls for a stronger U.S.-Japan security alliance, he said.
But if the U.S. interceptor missile missed the target, Japanese public opinion could become split, Yamamoto warned. Some would want more military spending to improve the system, but others would call for more diplomacy and perhaps looser ties with America, he said.
The United States and Japan signed an agreement Friday to strengthen their cooperation on missile defense. The signing came just hours after Japanese officials revealed that a high-resolution radar to detect incoming missiles had been deployed at a base in northern Japan.
Andrew Yang, a senior analyst at the Chinese Center for Advanced Policy Studies in Taiwan, said failing to hit the missile would be a colossal embarrassment for Washington and would fuel doubts about the missile defense system's role in regional security.
He said Taiwanese are watching how the situation plays out because the island might have to rely on U.S. forces in case China's military tried to forcibly reunite Taiwan with the mainland regime. Taiwan split from China amid civil war in 1949.
Knocking down North Korea's missile "would send a clear message that the U.S. would not be threatened by belligerent military actions," Yang said. "It would send the message that the U.S. is willing to defend its allies in the region."
Attempting to shoot down the missile would be a high-stakes gamble for the Pentagon itself. President Bush ordered the controversial and expensive program accelerated after taking office, and critics question whether it will work.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, refused Friday to say whether the system was on alert for a possible intercept mission. But he noted it was designed specifically to defend U.S. territory against missile threats from North Korea.
Washington also must consider that taking a shot at a North Korean missile could escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula, which is one of the world's most heavily militarized regions.
"South Korea probably wouldn't support it openly," said Kenneth Wells, director of the Center for Korean Studies at Australian National University. "There would be some division in the government, but if they were forced to make a comment one way or another, I suspect it would be that it wasn't a helpful thing to do."
Yang said China also wouldn't want to see U.S. forces try to down the missile. "The bottom line for China is that they don't want any escalation of tension in the region," he said.
Still, K.S. Nathan, a regional security analyst at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, said many Asians would be pleased to see the U.S. stop the missile test.
"I think the general consensus would be to see that North Korea is disciplined in some way or prevented from launching the missile," Nathan said.
Hugh White, head of the Strategic and Defense Studies Center at Australian National University, said there are other non-diplomatic factors being considered by the Americans.
He said that while it would be gratifying for the Americans to knock down the missile, they might be better off letting the North Koreans launch it.
"They'll learn a lot about the state of North Korean technology," White said. "A lot of my friends in the CIA are saying: 'No, no, no. Let it fly.'"

[WargamerScott]

I've got a bad feeling about this whole situation. I was watching the news today and some talking-head diplomat said that even if we shot down the missile, NK would not retaliate in any fashion because they know we would win any resulting war. But I disagree. This is a situation that is fraught with the possibility of mis-calculation. Look at the situation from the NK side of the board:

First, they know we are fighting in Iraq, a war that is putting something of a strain on our armed forces (largely minor, but still noticeable). This would seem to work in their favor as a major Korean War would be a huge drain in resources forcing the US military to now fight for resources for both Iraq and Korea. Logistically, that is going to hurt us. Second, the Iraq War, a low-intensity war if ever there was one, has proved to be politically divisive. I would argue that they would see this as a continuation of the Vietnam-era "cut-and-run" mentality that has deluded both Hussein and UBL about American resolve in a long-term war. Furthermore, they know that Bush has used all his political capital for Iraq---how likely could he convince other nations to rally behind the US again in yet ANOTHER war? These factors would be perceived as another plus in their column. Third, they know that even if they could never hope to win a war against the US, they could inflict a great deal of damage before they go down as both Seoul and Japan are within easy arty range---the economic implications alone would be devastating. Yet another plus in their column. Fourth, I bet they believe that China would intervene to stop the complete elimination of NK by the US, thereby limiting the total risk to the NK government. Finally, the NK leadership, like Hussein, is very insulated and living in something of a fantasy world. Simple bombastic self-delusion is a high probability.

Now, I'm not saying these are accurate assumptions, just that they could be easily perceived to be so on the part of the NKs. Taken together, this political/military calculus could give them reason to believe that the US will not interfere in a missile launch. If they do go ahead, and we shoot it down, this same calculus would seem to argue for military retaliation of some sort. And that could easily lead down a slippery slope toward open warfare.

[Yahoshua]

Interesting analysis.......

Your first point has merit, the other three are half-and-half, I'll explain why:

1. The U.S. military is under strain with the resources that are currently available. This is because we're trying to fight a war with a peace-time budget. Logistics are of little real concern since we already have shipping routes going through the pacific carrying heavy cargo to Iraq. Those same routes can easily be expanded to include the xcenario involving both North Korea and Iran.

2. Yes, there is a large divide in the camps over the Iraq war (mainly Dems vs. Repubs.) and the Democrats want us out of Iraq no matter the result of our doing so (this is one reason why I ignore them, they don't have their head on straight).

Bush has most definitely used his political capital, but a cancellation of that loss is the gain of having a good deal of neighboring nations in Asia and Europe backing U.N. sanctions (Yeah...talking Kimmy Wong to death is a really effective tactic). If need be, those same nations may also engage with the defense of South Korea if war breaks out on the peninsula again.

3. North Koreas' "Big Brother" China, does have a large amount of economic clout in connection with the U.S. But the Chinese have little in the way of a navy, their technology may be catching up to U.S. standards but is still a long-way off. The Chinese have more to gain in selling off surplus and obsolete military equipment to North Korea and Iran than getting involved in a war.

However, if China joins the war unofficially (as in the first Korean war) then they have multiple kudos to gain in how the U.S. behaves in conventional modern warfare as opposed to the guerilla style of warfare that is being experienced in Iraq. This would have the effect of modernising and honing the battle tactics of the Chinese. Not to mention gaining valuable battlefield experience from frontline commanders.

And if you look at a map, Seoul may be well within range of NK arty pieces, but Japan is a ways off at over 400 miles. http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blcjapan.htm (http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blcjapan.htm)

Would this hurt us economically? In the beginning it would, but once we switch over to a wartime economy, our stocks will be jumping like crazy with military contracts being handed out, jobs being created, and a draft being instituted to fill the gaps in the ranks. The industrial might of the United States would be revived once again. Yet for all this: China still holds the plug for the economic powerhouse.

We outsourced our jobs to "Big Brother" and India etc. Unless we "Insource" those jobs back to the U.S. and FAST, we're sitting ducks. China pulls the economic plug, taking the dollar and the yen to the ground. The U.S. market nose-dives into the ground, it's 1929 all over again. The Chinese can starve half of their population to death, and still remain numerically superior, in terms of numbers, to the rest of the world. The Chinese will be able to come out of this fight bloodied and bruised but still alive. As for the U.S. I have no clue what could result after a market crash.

4. A good deal of this point has already been enumerated in point 3. Yet it all depends on whether the Chinese feel they have more to gain in this conflict than to lose by sitting it out. After all, NK is a mere puppet state that may be getting out of line.....they may need a beating to remember that "Big Brother" lays down the rules....not Kimmy Wong.

5. Now I'm going to throw in Iran and Russia into the larger picture:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/asia_pol00.jpg

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraq_map.cfm

Russia is bankrupt. They have nothing in their account and little in the way of political capital. What they do have is alot of nukes floating around, and the scientists and information to put them to use. Everything is up for auction, and a war would fill their coffers mighty nice. As well as modernising battle tactics and theories etc.

Iran has a nutjob in the pilot seat.....and everybody seems to be enjoying the ride. Iran can hurt us in Iraq. Turning a mediocre problem into a "Sh*t hit the fan" situation. There are more cops in Manhattan island than there are soldiers in Iraq. To solve this problem, we need more troops in Iraq, but every Sarah sobstory and Harry Hardluck doesn't want little Jimmy to go to Iraq. This is why I would advocate the draining of our Prisons and sending them to Iraq in exchange for sitting in jail. Hey, 20 years in prison, 20 years in the army. At least they're not behind bars and actually being useful. Besides, if they step out of line, its the Red Line Brig for them.

Anyway, back to the topic. To avoid this situation (or drastically reduce the impact of such an incident) is to prop up the Iraqi government so they can stand on their own damn feet. Our navy aircraft can pummel the Iranian positions while the USMC moves in for mop-up. We then have the choice of either staying and starting a new govt. (sounds like fun). Or doing this round by round (by that I mean we destroy the Iranians ability to make any large-scale or effective military maneuvers while maintaining our budget and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Something that would be intriguing however, is if Russia decided to seize Iran for herself (think oil), or if China did so. The results of performance by the CHinese or Russian militaries would be of great value, and the Chinese or Russians would have some cash cows to milk. Or they both sit on the sidelines and sell off surplus equipment.

6. The pivotal point of this whole mess revolves around the projected NK test. If we succeed we gain more than we lose. We gain the respect of our allies, this will help us in pressing Iran to back down and open up their facilities for inspection. It will also have the effect of silencing the domestic critics of the program and allocate more funding from congess over the war budget.

If we fail. We lose the respect of our allies (and possibly backing for a forced intrusion into Iran) and prove flat-out that our tax dollars have once again been pissed away by overbearing politicians (what fun, I feel like working some more). And even more dire is the prospect of a downsizing of the war-budget, and consequently, making the U.S. more fragile as an economic powerhouse when the Chinese are holding the plug and exposed militarily if NK wants to migrate south.

Another possibility (actually two) is if we:

1. Decide to do a pre-emptive strike (which NK will see as an act of war). The navy will be very busy bombing the NK. And the army will be probably be busy keeping the NK north of the 38th.

2. We dont do anything. This has potentially damaging results in diplomatic relations but an airstrike directly following a launch would not be so protested by "Big Brother." We did give Kimmy Wong more than one chance to stop himself from slitting his wrists after all. And we'd learn about how far along the line Kimmy Wongs' empire has come both militarily and technologically (it also gives us a small insight on whether "Big Brother" is also capable of more advanced missile technologies). Any way it goes, if NK launches a bird, it'll end up making or breaking the U.S. on the political stage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's my analsis. I know it's long-winded, but I try to be as thorough as possible when projecting a future course of events. I know there's a few gaps involving Afghanistan/Iraq and a possible war with Iran, but I'm trying to avoid writng a book here. And btw I wrote this at around 0230 so please forgive any spelling mistakes or incomprehensible garbage in my post. G'night.

[swimsalot]

The US 2nd Infantry is nothing more than a "speed bump" to the North Korean Army.
You could literally walk from NK to the tip of the SK peninsula in a week.
If NK was attacked (ie their missile blown up on the pad) they might see this as an act of war (imagine that). They would quite easily resume actions against SK (remember, no truce or treaty exists, they simply declared a cease fire). If they did so, we really couldn't stop them from taking over the entire country.
If the US is capable of shooting down the NK missile in-flight, doing so would send a valuable message to both NK and our allies in SEA.
Of course, there's always the chance that the missile is just a prop, it won't/can't fly anyways, and Kim is just looking for more concessions like he received from Jimmy Carter the last time he acted hostile.
Funny how some Democrats (Mondale et al) are calling for a pre-emptive strike.
If it succeeds, they look like hawks.
If it fails, they can blame the evil satan Bush for another foreign policy failure.

This is a bad situation any way ya cut it.

[JamesT73J]

An interesting documentary about DPRK:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6951629397402742053

It lays in on a bit thick in the first minute or so, but stick with it. The place really is like nowhere else on earth.

[Yahoshua]

I believe Tom Clancy quoted it best with the phrase: "The world is cold and cruel, everybody dies alone." How fitting forr these souls. I almost hope a war does break out, then all the rage and fury pent up by these opressed peasants will tarnish the beloved glory of a dark empire and brand her memory forever.

[WargamerScott]

Interesting analysis.......

Your first point has merit, the other three are half-and-half, I'll explain why:

1. The U.S. military is under strain with the resources that are currently available. This is because we're trying to fight a war with a peace-time budget. Logistics are of little real concern since we already have shipping routes going through the pacific carrying heavy cargo to Iraq. Those same routes can easily be expanded to include the xcenario involving both North Korea and Iran.....

That's my analysis. I know it's long-winded, but I try to be as thorough as possible when projecting a future course of events. I know there's a few gaps involving Afghanistan/Iraq and a possible war with Iran, but I'm trying to avoid writng a book here. And btw I wrote this at around 0230 so please forgive any spelling mistakes or incomprehensible garbage in my post. G'night.


Great comprehensive analysis of a complex situation! :know:


The US 2nd Infantry is nothing more than a "speed bump" to the North Korean Army....
You could literally walk from NK to the tip of the SK peninsula in a week.
If NK was attacked (ie their missile blown up on the pad) they might see this as an act of war (imagine that). They would quite easily resume actions against SK (remember, no truce or treaty exists, they simply declared a cease fire). If they did so, we really couldn't stop them from taking over the entire country.
If the US is capable of shooting down the NK missile in-flight, doing so would send a valuable message to both NK and our allies in SEA.
Of course, there's always the chance that the missile is just a prop, it won't/can't fly anyways, and Kim is just looking for more concessions like he received from Jimmy Carter the last time he acted hostile.
Funny how some Democrats (Mondale et al) are calling for a pre-emptive strike.
If it succeeds, they look like hawks.
If it fails, they can blame the evil satan Bush for another foreign policy failure.

This is a bad situation any way ya cut it.


That raises another point: just how good is the NK army these days? Are they just a paper tiger such as Iraq's armed forces proved to be, or would they be capable of holding their own against the US in a full-blown war? Anybody have a sense of their capabilities? I expect they will perform better than the Iraqi armed forces, but not nearly as good as US forces. If they were to launch a full attack, I expect we would have to fall back initially, but would quickly stop the offensive. Then I expect it would be a slow, slugging match back up the peninsula.

BTW: Great analysis concerning the dems. I find it funny too how so many Carter/Clintonite doves have suddenly developed a blood lust....They talk big when it's not their head on the chopping block.

[Yahoshua]

Well, now I know all my noodles have been put to good use (at least my useless knowledge is good for something...)

"That raises another point: just how good is the NK army these days?"

Oh, how I'd love to know that myself. But in the least these troops are trained by the Chinese, so we can expect some improvement in terms of military equipment (however outdated it may be), and a sure-fire tactic of tanks and artillery. Guerilla warfare is expected if we push past NK lines.

"Are they just a paper tiger such as Iraq's armed forces proved to be, or would they be capable of holding their own against the US in a full-blown war?"

Iraq took a major blow in the first gulf war, and apparently they never recovered. From the North Koreans however, I'd expect heavy resistance, landmine-fields, AT ditches and emplacements, underground bunkers (extensive), and perhaps an aircraft or two that may still be flyable. I'd almost guarantee that Chinese field commanders will also be on the field either as advisors or directly commanding NK troops.

"Anybody have a sense of their capabilities?"

I doubt the CIA or NSA even has a full picture of the range of NK abilities and methods they may employ in a time of war.

"If they were to launch a full attack, I expect we would have to fall back initially, but would quickly stop the offensive. Then I expect it would be a slow, slugging match back up the peninsula."

That'd be my thought too. but a nagging thought still bites at me as to whether they plan to simply blow holes in the minefields with arty pieces, or if they developed a method of crossing/neutralising the mines fast enough to keep pace with a blitz heading south. At the moment, everything is up in the air.

[JamesT73J]

I don't think we'd see a conflict anytime soon. If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now.

Militarily, the DPRK infantry seem highly disciplined and indoctrinated - it's fair to say that they would not shy from fighting. I doubt there's much in the way of logistical support, but it's not a big country, and alot can be accomplished by grunt-power. I think it would be human-wave tactics all the way.

I don't think China - in their race to become a major capitalist player, no matter what the party says - would get involved at all. In fact, I'd suspect the opposite.

[GhOsT55]

I believe Tom Clancy quoted it best with the phrase: "The world is cold and cruel, everybody dies alone." How fitting forr these souls. I almost hope a war does break out, then all the rage and fury pent up by these opressed peasants will tarnish the beloved glory of a dark empire and brand her memory forever.

we dont want atonther korean war the first one was not that bad but think again

[Yahoshua]

It becomes a the choice of two evils.

Do we save more people by leaving things the way they are? Or do we do something about it, but lose a few in the process?

[JamesT73J]

It becomes a the choice of two evils.

Do we save more people by leaving things the way they are? Or do we do something about it, but lose a few in the process?

Regrettably, I seriously doubt there is the political will for such action, because it doesn't affect the west. If NK starts lobbing ICBM practice warheads around, and they get close to a major power, then yes, I think we'll see Pyongyang bombed. But that's not going to happen. It's just brinkmanship, something that KJI is well versed in.

It'll probably be the free market that topples NK, just like every other closed state. If the place was just a bit bigger, they'd struggle to contain it, as it is the small size (North Korea really is very small) makes it easy, so it'll take longer.

[Yahoshua]

A sad but true statement.......political leaders have no motivation to do anything unless it'll get some votes on their ballot the next election.

[GhOsT55]

TOKYO - North Korea test-launched two missiles Wednesday that landed in the Sea of Japan, Japanese media reported. A Pentagon official said they were Scud missiles and not the the longer-range variety that has been the focus of international concern.
The reclusive communist state launched the first missile at 3:32 a.m., or 2:32 p.m. Tuesday EDT, and it crashed into the Sea of Japan several minutes later, public broadcaster NHK reported. Japan's Kyodo news agency carried a similar report and quoted a government official as saying a second missile had also been fired.:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

[Kapitan]

So they got a missile, they have 22 rusting romeos a handful or patrol craft a few hundred thousand poorly trained soldiers and a monkey.

what have we got? alot more id doubt they will provoke us simply because we could possibly invade and conquor within the month, they know they are weak so they turn to the only thing that asserts power which is nuclear.

[sonar732]

Something to think about is just how well is the anti-armor forces of South Korea and the U.S.? Another item is that you see pictures of NPKR anti-tank emplacements on another forum topic, but what of the South Korean side? The initial invasion would be like the old school invasion of Western Europe that NATO practiced and trained for years. Sheer numbers would prevail in the first days, however, the American air superiority would win the day.

[Seadawg23]

All points quite interesting. As I dont post here much I find all above posts excellent and this is a topic i could get into. Though right now I dont have the time to write a book on the topic.

i would like to say:
N. Korea is Hot-headed as we all know. There strength lies in there ability to avoid conflict on the 38th parallel.
Their current strategy as I understand it is to take the capitol of S. Korea by the use of there LST's and hovercraft(if this are still functional). Basically an ampib-landing using a few thousand trps and equipment. As with all Communist regime's it is about MASS arty..and NK has just alot.

So, with that being said: either A: the S. Koreans will have to defend off and stave the NK assualt at sea or littoral waters.
B: The US and allies will have to get involved quick. the US 7th Fleets purpose is to prevent such a thing. there other is to keep China from taking Taiwan(totally different topic)

Now, according to some internet sources(which u cant totally believe). N korea has extensive coastal defenses and arty batteries...SSM and SAM sites...Bunker sea wall etc etc...All this may or may not be upkept. But it has always been the policy of dictator style gov'ts to show their might thru show of force. Just look at russia and china...HUGE SQUARES to line up troops in pretty formations on military parade and film it..show the world.

just my 2 cents. I will put in five more later

[WargamerScott]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202274,00.html

North Korea Has Three to Five More Missiles on Launch Pads
Wednesday, July 05, 2006

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea has between three and five missiles on launch pads ready for firing, but none of them are the long-range intercontinental type, FOX News has confirmed.
All of the missiles are believed to be short- to medium-range and are of no threat to the United States, but could reach U.S. allies like Japan.
The South Korean defense minister, Yoon Kwang-ung, warned that further tests were possible, South Korean media reported Thursday.
"There is a possibility that North Korea will fire additional missiles," Yonhap news agency quoted him telling lawmakers.
But none of those missiles are reported to be Taepodong-2, a long-range ballistic missile that could reach the U.S.
FOX News has learned that U.S. officials do believe North Korea has more Taepodong-2 missiles, but there is no information that the North Koreans are preparing to launch any.
The North has also barred people from sailing into some areas off the coast until July 11 in a possible sign of preparations for additional launches, South Korean media has reported....

This is extremely provocative behavior. :down: Things could easily get out of hand.

[GhOsT55]

All points quite interesting. As I dont post here much I find all above posts excellent and this is a topic i could get into. Though right now I dont have the time to write a book on the topic.

i would like to say:
N. Korea is Hot-headed as we all know. There strength lies in there ability to avoid conflict on the 38th parallel.
Their current strategy as I understand it is to take the capitol of S. Korea by the use of there LST's and hovercraft(if this are still functional). Basically an ampib-landing using a few thousand trps and equipment. As with all Communist regime's it is about MASS arty..and NK has just alot.

So, with that being said: either A: the S. Koreans will have to defend off and stave the NK assualt at sea or littoral waters.
B: The US and allies will have to get involved quick. the US 7th Fleets purpose is to prevent such a thing. there other is to keep China from taking Taiwan(totally different topic)

Now, according to some internet sources(which u cant totally believe). N korea has extensive coastal defenses and arty batteries...SSM and SAM sites...Bunker sea wall etc etc...All this may or may not be upkept. But it has always been the policy of dictator style gov'ts to show their might thru show of force. Just look at russia and china...HUGE SQUARES to line up troops in pretty formations on military parade and film it..show the world.

just my 2 cents. I will put in five more later


so yur saying korean war 2 :o

[moose1am]

If WWIII breaks out the Neatherlands may not be a direct target but the radiation created by all the nukes from USA, Russia, China and a few other small countries will make your dikes glow orange and yellow for years.

You can put your ice skates away and bend over and kiss your back side goodby if N Korea sends a missle at the USA.

I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and believe me that was a very close call. But the Leaders back then were more rational than what we have today in N. Korea.

The world gets more dangerous each and ever time a new country arms themselves with nuclear weapons. Someday all hell will break out and we will all be very very sorry that we ever designed nukes.

One thing we can depends on is that mankind will screw things up eventually.



The country with the most firepower the world ever saw is rejecting a small country to light a new years rocket. :shifty:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-212.jpg

That "new years rocket" can hold multiple nuclear weapons and probably destroy the Netherlands quite easily. ;)

[Captain Norman]

Now, if North Korea were to invade South Korea, it would fail in their part.
The North Korean military has the power to cause immediate serious damage, but cant fight a full scale war. We are talking a country with no food, no money, and no oil. How do you fight a war without it? If a war between NK and SK and the US broke out, we could expect serious casualties on all fronts, but North Korea cannot recreate the Korean War in the modern age of the 21st century.

[Wilko]

Just idle speculation here but while I agree NK is very poor they seem willing to sacrifice the peasents for what ever goal they deem worthy, so would not they have a decent stock pile od stuff if they were planning on going to war. Surely they would just strip everything bare for they military use and if a few odd million die from starvation or freeze to death then so be it... and what sort of help would they be getting from what ever so called allies they might have...

[goldorak]

Now, if North Korea were to invade South Korea, it would fail in their part.
The North Korean military has the power to cause immediate serious damage, but cant fight a full scale war. We are talking a country with no food, no money, and no oil. How do you fight a war without it? If a war between NK and SK and the US broke out, we could expect serious casualties on all fronts, but North Korea cannot recreate the Korean War in the modern age of the 21st century.
Are you so sure about it ?
Currently the US military is waging war in iraq, and they aren't winning neither on military nor political ground.
Can the US really wage 2 wars on 2 vastly different fronts if NC were to invade SC ?
I honestly don't think so.
So the situation wouldn't be so clear cut.
What happens if Cina supports NC ?
If NC ever stood a chance of invading SC and winning at riunification it is right now.

[Kapitan]

Gorrilla warfare is very effective dart in dart out ambush its brough america out of vietnam im sure it could do the same in korea, simply because all the people will have a will to fight and die for thier country.

Want to challenge 20 million people with an army of only 200,000 ? be like putting lambs to slaughter.

[JamesT73J]

As I understand it, America has planned for the ability to fight two campaigns; certainly they have the will to do it. Secondly, should the DPRK roll south, it won't just be the US, it will be the UN. That means that Europe, and most likely the C.I.S would also commit assets. In short it would be a total bloodbath. Most of the Korean Peninsula would resemble Afghanistan with the sheer amount of HE being lobbed about.

The PRC would not get involved; they're too far down the road towards a free market and trade; I would not be in the least bit surprised if they actually worked against the DPRK - there is a far bigger reward for them economically in working with the west.

I'm still not convinced this is going to happen though. KJI is just - as usual - being a dick.


James

P.S.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6681/herro0ae.jpg

[micky1up]

the US dosent have a problem winning conventional wars they swept aside the iraqi army but their not fighting a conventional war now i have no doubt the could beat north korean army but once thats over i fear insurgency and terroism will reign and theUS hasnt a clue how to win that kind of battle as you now see in iraq

[Yahoshua]

We could always let SK take care of that problem for us...I'm sure some grandfather will be cheering on the troopers on the sidelines to get back at the Kommies.