U.S. Military Set to Intercept North Korean Ship

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I'm not sure why China has not stood up.

I presume its the old enemy of my enemy line of thinking.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

I presume its the old enemy of my enemy line of thinking.

We can say for certainty that NK is not a paper tiger. She has nukes and demonstrated that. The way NK is posturing and throws out using retaliation x100 if the US interdicts her ship seems like it is coming from a mad man. Perhaps they are very concerned this posture is coming from a mad man. China perhaps views this the same?

[Skybird]

Stop the ship and board it once it has left the six-mile-zone of NK or China.

Shoot down that test missile if it flies into Hawai's direction. Or Japan or Australia or South Korea, for that matter.

Bring a small two-liner in the smallprint of newspapers on page 27, one line for the first and one line for the second event - not more.

At least that's what I would do.

Proliferation is the biggest threat coming from NK. It shall not be allowed. Preventing proliferation by all means needed is total priority over avoiding to provoke them. That's why searching the ship should not be left to the Chinese. They might hide findings in order to play down the incident.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Stop the ship and board it once it has left the six-mile-zone of NK or China.

Shoot down that test missile if it flies into Hawai's direction. Or Japan or Australia or South Korea, for that matter.

Bring a small two-liner in the smallprint of newspapers on page 27, one line for the first and one line for the second event - not more.

At least that's what I would do.

Proliferation is the biggest threat coming from NK. It shall not be allowed. Preventing proliferation by all means needed is total priority over avoiding to provoke them. That's why searching the ship should not be left to the Chinese. They might hide findings in order to play down the incident.

Stop the ship, absolutely. UN resolutions seem to require that, and force it to the nearest port. Of course it can be inspected enroute.

As a side note UN resolutions required action against Iraq also, but when executed, it was criticized mightily. With Mr. Obama's pathological need for approval I suspect the ship will get a pass.

I think it would be better if the missile is never fired by NK. Shooting down such a missile would reveal capabilities not for the entire worlds eyes.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Stop the ship, absolutely. UN resolutions seem to require that, and force it to the nearest port. Of course it can be inspected enroute.

As a side note UN resolutions required action against Iraq also, but when executed, it was criticized mightily.

That can be debated - and has. Not to mention the amateurish way in which the "action" was not prepared, not planned, and thus badly carried out. The result is an Iraqi prime minister taking general orders from Teheran now, and a Shia population looking for leadership from Iran. Clever!

With Mr. Obama's pathological need for approval I suspect the ship will get a pass.

Let's wait and see.

I think it would be better if the missile is never fired by NK. Shooting down such a missile would reveal capabilities not for the entire worlds eyes.

Test shots from earlier stages of the socalled star wars program have been on all major TV screens around the globe - since years. That some of them were successful, is no secret. We also think of the Patriot missiles shooting down Iraqi missiles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CastleBravo
Stop the ship, absolutely. UN resolutions seem to require that, and force it to the nearest port. Of course it can be inspected enroute.

As a side note UN resolutions required action against Iraq also, but when executed, it was criticized mightily.

That can be debated - and has. Not to mention the amateurish way in which the "action" was not prepared, not planned, and thus badly carried out. The result is an Iraqi prime minister taking general orders from Teheran now, and a Shia population looking for leadership from Iran. Clever!

Debated yes, ameteurish no. Remember major offensive operations ended rather soon. The problem, was the UN members which sactioned the activities and then had no stomach for the outcome, giving the impression that the US (GWB and the US Congress) acted alone and recklessly. That was not the case. Any other interpretation is politically motivated spin.


Quote:

With Mr. Obama's pathological need for approval I suspect the ship will get a pass.
Let's wait and see.

Yes let's.


Quote:

I think it would be better if the missile is never fired by NK. Shooting down such a missile would reveal capabilities not for the entire worlds eyes.
Test shots from earlier stages of the socalled star wars program have been on all major TV screens around the globe - since years. That some of them were successful, is no secret. We also think of the Patriot missiles shooting down Iraqi missiles.

How many times have you seen news reports way out of reality? Many times I bet. I have also. I donnot depend on news organizations reporting the entirely correct news, especially on classified events. I cannot suspend my disbelief.

[Platapus]

Under what authority would the United States have for intercepting a ship in international waters? Even the PSI does not allow that.

Even the latest UNSC resolution 1874 does not allow that either.

Besides you know the first North Korean ship to leave port will be totally clean as to make a big public stink about piracy on the high seas.

Originally Posted by Platapus

Under what authority would the United States have for intercepting a ship in international waters? Even the PSI does not allow that.

Even the latest UNSC resolution 1874 does not allow that either.

Besides you know the first North Korean ship to leave port will be totally clean as to make a big public stink about piracy on the high seas.

No nation will sieze the vessel, although the phrase in question is used,. UN resolution 1874 (2009) States this.......

Unanimously adopting resolution 1874 (2009) under Chapter VII, the Council sharpened its weapons import-export ban on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea enacted in resolution 1718 (2006) ‑‑ which included armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, attack helicopters, warships and missiles and spare parts ‑‑ by calling on States to inspect, seize and dispose of the items and by denying fuel or supplies to service the vessels carrying them.
The Council called on all States to cooperate with those inspections, and, if the flag State did not consent to inspection on the high seas, decided that that State should direct the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities.
Any Member State that undertook an inspection, or seized and disposed of such cargo, was required to promptly submit reports containing the details to the Committee monitoring the sanctions, and to report on any lack of cooperation of a flag State.
...
The issue of inspections was complex and sensitive, and countries must act prudently and under the precondition of reasonable grounds and sufficient evidence, and refrain from any words or deeds that might exacerbate conflict. Under no circumstances should there be the use of force or threat of the use of force.


Personally I'm not a supporter of the UN, and its resolutions, but if ya want to live in a world of petty dictators and tyrants this is what its about.

[Platapus]

Well that has always been the problem with the United Nations.

We want the UN to have teeth and authority when ruling against someone we don't like.

We don't want the UN to have teeth and authority when ruling against someone we do like.. or us for that matter.

Well one can't have it both ways. Either the UN is empowered to dictate to all sovereign nations (including the United States) or it is not empowered.

Since the United States will never allow the UN to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, it is doubtful that any other nation will allow this either.

Most people realize that the UN is a toothless organization. What many people don't realize is that the "Big 5" deliberately designed the UN to be a toothless organization when it was formed.

Originally Posted by Platapus

Well that has always been the problem with the United Nations.

We want the UN to have teeth and authority when ruling against someone we don't like.

We don't want the UN to have teeth and authority when ruling against someone we do like.. or us for that matter.

Well one can't have it both ways. Either the UN is empowered to dictate to all sovereign nations (including the United States) or it is not empowered.

Since the United States will never allow the UN to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, it is doubtful that any other nation will allow this either.

Most people realize that the UN is a toothless organization. What many people don't realize is that the "Big 5" deliberately designed the UN to be a toothless organization when it was formed.

Would your country allow an NGO, like the UN, superceed its soveriegn authority? If you are an EU nation you already have. Don't lay this at the feet of the US. Some of us still believe in individual rights.

[CaptainHaplo]

My money is that the ship won't be molested. O will fold like a windbag. Calling it now.

It seems North Korea wants War
EU Intel suggests they will Provoke World War 3,
Sadly its the children who suffer,
if it happens,
Lets hope not

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by owner20071963

It seems North Korea wants War
EU Intel suggests they will Provoke World War 3,
Sadly its the children who suffer,
if it happens,
Lets hope not

Well your close they dont want war. They wish to give the appearance that they want war.

Testing the resolve as it were.

It will be interesting indeed when and if they do pop a rocket off towards U.S. possesions what the reactions of the current administrations will be.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Quote:
Originally Posted by CastleBravoDebated yes, ameteurish no. Remember major offensive operations ended rather soon. The problem, was the UN members which sactioned the activities and then had no stomach for the outcome, giving the impression that the US (GWB and the US Congress) acted alone and recklessly. That was not the case. Any other interpretation is politically motivated spin.

Hardly. It was badly prepared. Rumsfeld ignored serious advise by his own military advisers, and bullied away all critics, and insisted on the operation being run with too little troops, no proper mission obkjectives, no idea of what to do after the Iraqi field army had been beaten, and no exist-strategy. As had to be expected, the real troubles just begun after "major operations ended" - but that perspective was totally ignored - instead Bush and Rumsfeld expected the Iraqis to applaud for Americans bringing them democracy - that shows how little they knew about that place. It was planned by lobbying amateurs. The motivations were different than what was told to the public. The early years were pleagued by a plethora of arrogant wrong decisions and kicking better advise out the window. and what one has gotten is an Iraq that slowly but constantly shifts towards Iranian dominance. Clever. So very very clever the whole thing.

And after having messed things up yourself, blaming other countries that warned you that you would just mess it up, and never hid that they do reject your claim of having legitimation by the UN - blaming the others who warned you of what you got: this is really lovely.

Check the archives, we have had plenty of Iraq war-debates back then. No need to do it again. The hawks back then have not changed a bit, nor has the oppositoon to the lies over Iraq changed.

Or take the easy way and watch "No end in sight", which was available for free on the web in 2007, meanwhile has been released on DVD. It is a very good summary of what went wrong, and how and why it went wrong, and why political amateurs not knowing what they were doing are responsible for the mess, and gives interviews with many of the key players who were at location in the heat of events.

http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/

And Youtube.

[Skybird]

On the Korean issue, as much as I deny (and always denied) there was any UN legitimation for war against Iraq, as much I think that current UN decision status is sufficient to stop NK ships and search them.

Not that I give much about an UN legitimiation in this case, since this is about fighting nuclear proliferation - and this represents a line in the sand where my patience with bureaucratic games and procedures end. The Israeli air strike on Syria that destroyed - most likely NK-delivered - secret nuclear installations in Syria also was not backed by the UN: and I do not care a second for that.