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 ?

The UN?

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.'"

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.

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

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/middl...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.

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.

An interesting documentary about DPRK:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...29397402742053

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.

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.

Great comprehensive analysis of a complex situation! :know:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.