North Korean Nuclear Tests

[Mr_Tea 0]

Typical communistic lead land. While the people starving to death, the leader get`s fat and pumps tons of money in the military sector.

What a great leader, that doesn`t see that he is on the wrong way.

[ozanzac 0]

Personally, I don't think much will change as a result of this, and to be quite honest, I'm not sure why, North Korea, had to demonstrate that it has a Nuclear arsenal. They've long been under suspicion for having one, and that in itself, was deterant enough.

The thing, I find most ironic, is that land on the Korean peninsular, comes at a premium. Whilist I understand quite fully, that the blast was merely a fart in comparison to some of the apocolyptic warheads in the hands of the former cold war powers, it still remains to be seen, why would they want to contaminate there own, limited land?

None the less, do I think this will have an impact on my day to day life? Probably not. Unless someone decides to overreact....which I'm also hoping, won't happen.

But until then, i'm gonna sit back, relax, and let someone else, do the caring!

[868 0]

The weaker North Korea gets, the more dangerous it becomes.

The question that will likely determine the global balance of power in Asia for generation is, what happens when North Korea collapses?

KFR (Kims Family Regime): Abbreviation used by the American military officers.

The Nightmare After Iraq

On the Korean peninsula, the Cold War has never ended.

In the immediate aftermath of the Korean War, the South raised a 328-foot flagpole; the North responded with a 525-foot pole, then put a flag on it whose dry weight is 595 pounds. The North built a two-story building in the Joint Security Area at Pan munjom; the South built a three-story one. The North then added another story to its building. "The land of one-upmanship," is how one U.S. Army sergeant describes the DMZ, or demilitarized zone.

The two sides once held a meeting in Panmunjom that went on for eleven hours. Because there was no formal agreement about when to take a bathroom break, neither side budged. The meeting became known as the "Battle of the Bladders."

In other divided countries of the twentieth century-Vietnam, Germany, Yemen - the forces of unity ultimately triumphed. But history suggests that unification does not happen through a calibrated political process in which the interests of all sides are respected. Rather, it tends to happen through a cataclysm of events that, piles of white papers and war-gaming exercises notwithstanding, catches experts by surprise.

Given that North Korea's army of 1.2 million soldiers has been increasingly deployed toward the South Korean border, the Korean peninsula looms as potentially the next American military nightmare. In 1980, 40 percent of North Korean combat forces were deployed south of Pyongyang near the DMZ; by 2003, more then 70 percent were. As the saying goes among American soldiers, "There is no peace time in ROK." One has merely to observe the Patriot missile barriers, the reinforced concrete hangars, and the blast barriers at the U.S. Air Force bases at Osan and Kunsan, south of Seoul-which are as heavily fortified as any bases in Iraq-to be aware of this. A marine in Okinawa said, "North Korea is not some third-rate, Middle Eastern conventional army. These brainwashed Asians" - as he crudely put it-"will stand and fight." American soldiers in Korea refer to the fighting on the peninsula between 1950 and 1953 as "the first Korean War." The implicit assumption is that there will be a second.

This helps explain why Korea may be the most dismal place in the world for U.S. troops to be deployed-worse, in some ways, than Iraq. Numerous members of the the combat-arms community, both air and infantry, told me that they would rather be in Iraq or Afghanistan than in Korea, which constitutes the worst of all military worlds. Soldiers and airmen often live on a grueling wartime schedule, with constant drills, and yetthey also have to put up with official folderol that is part of all peacetime bases-the saluting and inspections that fall by the wayside in war zones, where the only thing that matters is how well you fight. The weather on the peninsula is lousy, too: the winds charging down from Siberia make the winters unbearably frigid, and the monsoons coming off the Pacific Ocean make the summers hot and humid. The dust blowing in from Gobi Desert doesn't help.

The threat from north of the DMZ is formidable. North Korea boasts 100,000 well-trained special-operation forces and one of the worlds largest biological and chemical arsenals. It has stockpiles of anthrax, cholera, and plague, as well as eight industrial facilities for producing chemical agents-any of which could be launched at Seoul by the army's conventional artillery. If the governing infrastructure in Pyongyang were to unravel, the result could be widespread lawlessness (compounded by the guerilla mentality of the Kim Family Regime's armed forces), as well as mass migration out of and within North Korea. In short, North Korea's potential for the deployment of weapons of mass destruction-either during or after pre-collapse fighting is far greater.

What terrifies South Koreans more than North Korean missiles is North Korean refugees pouring south. The Chinese, for their part, have nightmare visions of millions of North Korean refugees heading north over the Yalu river into Manchuria.

Obviously, it would be reckless not to worry about North Korea's missile and WMD technologies. North test fired seven missiles in July. According to U.S. data, three of the missiles were Scud-Cs, and three were No-dong-As with ranges of 300 to 1,000 miles; all were capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The third type of missile, a Taep'o-dong-2, has a range of 2,300 to 9,300 miles, which means it could conceivably hit the continental United States. Though the Taep'o-dong-2 failed after takeoff during the recent testing, it did so at the point of maximum dynamic pressure-the same point where the space shuttle Challenger exploded, and the moment when things are most likely to go wrong. So this is likely not an insoluble problem for the KFR.

How to prevent another Iraq

Stephen Bradner, a civilian expert on the region and an adviser to the military in South Korea, has thought a lot about the tactical and operational problems an unraveling North Korean state would present. So has Colonel Maxwell, the chief of staff of U.S. Special Operations in South Korea. "The regime in Pyongyang could collapse without necessarily its army corps and brigades collapsing," Maxwell says, "So we might have to mount a relief operation at the same time that we'd be conducting combat ops. If there is anybody in the UN who thinks it will just be a matter of feeding people, they're smoking dope."

Maxwell has conducted similar operations before: he was the commander of the U.S Army Special Forces battalion that landed on Basilan Island, in the southern Phillippines, in the early 2002, part of a mission that combined humanitarian assistance with counterinsurgency operations against Jemaah Islamiyah and the Abu Sayyaf Group, two terrorist organizations. But the Korean peninsula presents a far vaster and more difficult challenge. "The situation in the North could become so messy and ambiguous," Maxwell says, "that the collapse of the chain of command of the KFR could be more dangerous than the preservation of it, particularly when one considers control over WMD."

In order to prevent the debacle of the sort that occurred in Iraq-but with potentially deadlier consequences, because of the free-floating WMD-a successful relief operation would require making contacts with the KFR generals and various factions of the former North Korean military, who would be vying for control in different regions. If the generals were not absorbed into the operational command structure of the occupying force, Maxwell says they might form the basis of an insurgency.

The Chinese, who have connections inside the North Korean military, would be best positioned to make these contacts-but the role of U.S. Army Special Forces in this effort might be substantial. Green berets and the CIA would be among the first in, much like in Afghanistan in 2001. Including the South Korean Special Operators.

Obviously, the United States could not unilaterally insert troops into a dissolved North Korea. It would likely be a four-power intervention force-the United States, Chine, South Korea, and Russia. Officially sanctioned by the United Nations. Japan would be kept out (though all parties would gladly accept Japanese money for the endeavor).

Although Japan's proximity to the peninsula gives it the most to fear from reunification, Korean hatred of the Japanese makes participation of the Japanese troops in an intervention force unlikely. Between 1910 and 1945, Japan brutally occupied not only Korea but parts of China too, and it defeated Russian on land and at sea in the early twentieth century. Tokyo may have more reason then any other government for wanting to put boots on the ground in collapsed North Korea, but it won't be able to, because both China and South Korea would fight tooth and nail to prevent it from doing so.

Of course, South Korea would bear the brunt of the economic and social disruption in returning the peninsula to normalcy. No official will say this out loud, but South Korea-along with every other country in the region-as little interest in reunification, unless it were to happen gradually over years or decades. The best outcome would be a South Korean protectorate in much of the North, officially under un international trusteeship, that would keep the two Koreas functionally separate for a significant period of time. This would allow each country time to prepare for unified Korean state, without the attendant chaos.

Following the Communist regime's collapse, the early stabilization of the North could fall unofficially to the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) and U.S. Forces Korea (which is a semiautonomous subcommand of PACOM), also wearing the blue UN helmets. But while the U.S. military would have operational responsibility, it would not have sole control. It would have to lead an unwieldy regional coalition that would need to deploy rapidly in order to stabilize the North and deliver humanitarian assistance. A successful relief operation in North Korea in the weeks following the regime's collapse could mean the difference between anarchy and prosperity on the peninsula for the years to come.

If North Korea Attacks

But what if rather than simply unraveling, the North launched a surprised attack on the South? This is probably less likely to happen now than it was, say two decades ago, when Kim Il Sung commanded a stronger state and the South Korean armed forces were less mature.

Simply driving through Seoul, one of the world's great and congested megacities, makes it clear that a conventional infantry attack on South Korea's capital is something that not even a fool would contemplate. So if the North were to attack, it would likely resort instead to a low-grade demonstration of "shock and awe," using its 13,000 artillery pieces and multiple-rocket launchers to fire more than 300,000 shells per hour on the South Korean capital, where closeto half the nation's 49 million people live. The widespread havoc this would cause would be amplified by North Korean special-operational forces, which would infiltrate the South to sabotage water plants and train and bus terminals. Meanwhile, the North Korean People's Army would march on the city of Uijongbu, north of Seoul, from which it could cross over the Han River and bypass Seoul from the east.

But this strategy would fail. While American A-10s, F-16s and other aircraft would destroy enemy missile batteries and kill many North Korean troops inside South Korea, submarine-launched missiles and B-2 bombers sent from Guam and Whiteman Air Force Bas in Missouri would take out strategic assets inside North Korea. In the meantime, the South Korean army would quickly occupy the transport hubs, while unleashing its own divisions and special-operation forces on the marauding People's army. The KFR knows this; thus any such invasion would have to be the act of regime in the latter phases of disintegration. North Korea's lone hope would be that the hourly carnage it could produce-in the time between the first artillery barrage on Seoul and the beginning of a robust military response by the South Korea and the United States-would lead the South Korean left, abetted by the United Nations and elements of the global media, to cry out for diplomacy and a negotiated settlement as an alternative violence.

And there is no question: the violence would be horrific. Iraq and Afghanistan would look clean by comparison. A South Korea filled with North Korean troops would be a "target-rich environment," in which the good guys and the bad guys would always be close to each other. "The ultimate fog of war." The battlefield would be made more confusing by the serious language barrier that exists between American pilots and the South Korean JTACs, who would have to guide the the Americans to many of their targets. A-10 and F-16 pilots in South Korea have complained that this weak link in the bilateral military relationship would drive up the instances of friendly-fire and collateral civilian deaths-on wihch the media undoubtedly would then concentrate. As part of a deal to half the bloodbath, members of the KFR might be able to negotiate their own post-regime survival.

[ralphwiggum 6]

BUZZARD @ Oct. 10 2006,00:17)]

Both sides having nuke, especially a closed regime with history of continuous acts against one country is not an equal treatment.

Also, how about SK getting nuclear weapons?

Pakistan comes to mind here, when you say a closed regime with history of continuous acts against one country. Oh, but I forgot, the U.S. managed to undermine that by threatening to throw Pakistan back into the stone age... Apparently, nobody minds Pakistan having nukes, although it's history of conflict versus India over Kashmir (spelling?) is long - and hey, India has nukes, too! And both test them, and nobody gives a crap. Oh, and Mr. Musharraf wasn't elected when he got to power the first time, if I'm not mistaken...

As for South Korea getting nukes... well, if it makes them happy... But then you'd also have to give nukes to Taiwan... I'd like to see China react to that! But, for the sake of multi-laterality ( ), I'd give Cuba nukes, too. Yeah, because they have a closed regime with a history of continuous act against Cuba... the country in question being the good old U.S. of A.

Now SK doesn't have nukes. So the comparison ends even before it starts. Unless SK gets one, you are looking at imbalance of force.

When Korean war happened it was the first war of Cold war. International scale. While Cuba might have been a thorn on the side, it really didn't matter since the attempt that US made was none, only indirect support(or failure of).

It's ok to criticize both USA and North Korea. I've never said it's ok to criticize USA and I've never said it's wrong to criticize North Korea. What I find stupid and hypocritical is to criticize North Korea for getting nukes while not criticizing USA (or even defend USAs right to have nukes).

But you criticize US, but have no mention of NK's hypocrisy.

Quote[/b] ]It might not be ok for North Korea to get nukes, but it's just hypocritical of countries sitting on their piles of nukes while waving their finger in the face of North Korea saying nono.

Quote[/b] ]And then you got people, as said above, that defend USAs right to have nclear weapons, but at the same time whine every time a nation they find threatening mention the word "nuclear".

So if your country is threatened you should just let it happen? If USA started doing same thing its critics do, US gets comdemnation while others get a pass. For example, NK has been making counterfeit US bills and send them out. If US did that except change it to Euro, you'd be looking at international outcry.

Quote[/b] ]I never said that only one side having leads that side to actually using the nukes when they go to war. I said that in certain situations under certain circumstances only one side having nukes can be worse than if both sides had nukes.

And what would that circumstance be? I doubt current situation is that special circumstance.

Quote[/b] ]And if South Korea got nukes, who would care? Nobody. As long as they are part of the people who's labeled as the "good guys" by the western world, there's no problem. And now we're back to being hypocritical. You got countries labeled as bad, and countires labeled as good. Good ones can do whatever they like without anyone giving a flying fart about it, bad ones get condemned if they just mention it so the good guys can hear it.

I guess everything is labeling, and there is no wrong or right, but merely how it is labeled right? I guess attacking and engaging in 3 year long war makes a country "labeled" as bad.

[EiZei 0]

I guess everything is labeling, and there is no wrong or right, but merely how it is labeled right? I guess attacking and engaging in 3 year long war makes a country "labeled" as bad.

Or being generally a psycho bitch of a neighbor for the last 50 years:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm

This list of course does not include their little terrorist activities, counterfeiting, drug smuggling, arms dealing or any other wacky sheningans.

[Garcia 0]

It's ok to criticize both USA and North Korea. I've never said it's ok to criticize USA and I've never said it's wrong to criticize North Korea. What I find stupid and hypocritical is to criticize North Korea for getting nukes while not criticizing USA (or even defend USAs right to have nukes).

But you criticize US, but have no mention of NK's hypocrisy.

Quote[/b] ]It might not be ok for North Korea to get nukes, but it's just hypocritical of countries sitting on their piles of nukes while waving their finger in the face of North Korea saying nono.

That's because I was commenting on your comment to PainDealers comment about judging. I don't really care too much about the North Korean policy, therefor I don't know in what way they are hypocritical, if they even are. Mainly they're just a bunch of people lead by a small, fat, crazy guy.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And then you got people, as said above, that defend USAs right to have nuclear weapons, but at the same time whine every time a nation they find threatening mention the word "nuclear".

So if your country is threatened you should just let it happen? If USA started doing same thing its critics do, US gets comdemnation while others get a pass. For example, NK has been making counterfeit US bills and send them out. If US did that except change it to Euro, you'd be looking at international outcry.

Yes of course it goes both ways. USA can get condemned for something while others don't get condemned for doing the same thing, just like USA can do quite much that other countries can't even try to do without being condemned...what a wonderful world...

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I never said that only one side having leads that side to actually using the nukes when they go to war. I said that in certain situations under certain circumstances only one side having nukes can be worse than if both sides had nukes.

And what would that circumstance be? I doubt current situation is that special circumstance.

I wasn't talking about this situation. I was commenting on how nuclear weapons can lead to peace, in certain situations under certain circumstances. I've never said this is such a situation.

Quote[/b] ]I guess everything is labeling, and there is no wrong or right, but merely how it is labeled right?

Indeed.

Quote[/b] ] I guess attacking and engaging in 3 year long war makes a country "labeled" as bad.

I guess that depends. If that was true, wouldn't USA be a bad guy along with North Korea now after Iraq? Anyway, of course North Korea isn't exactly a nice, peaceful country that should be let loose and allowed to do what they want. However, this still doesn't change the fact that (I fell) it's somewhat hypocritical of certain nations/people to condemn them and sanction them for getting something they themself have and defend their own right to having it.

[mattxr 9]

China calls for "appropriate" UN action after North Korea's nuclear test claim and refuses to rule out sanctions.

[crashdome 2]

This thread should have existed long before the Iraq thread. I laugh at the general public here (US) that are suddenly so adament at proclaiming action all the while the Iraq war it was "not important" and excuses were handed out left and right.

Well... there you go.. I guess it was important.

Now maybe if I can hear Bush get up and talk about the "axes" of evil again then my day will be finished. The hypocracy of this administration and the geese-like behavior of the military-mind never ceases to amaze me.

[mattxr 9]

This planet has never been perfect and the only time it will be is when theres no human life left..

Since Adam and Eve (if you belive that crap, i dont) there has always been some wrong doings.. How can the US say NO NUKES for you when they have about 50 or something and they get to test them in their remote deserts..

[XCess 0]

Apparently, the US has over 10,000 nuclear weapons in stockpile.

Source

[EiZei 0]

This thread should have existed long before the Iraq thread. I laugh at the general public here (US) that are suddenly so adament at proclaiming action all the while the Iraq war it was "not important" and excuses were handed out left and right.

Actually there has been more than one North Korea thread before this one; time for an asian politics thread?

[Baff2 0]

[

Quote[/b] ]I gues that's why Baghdad got nuked during OIF? The world knows that nuclear weapons are necessary evil, and thus there are works to reduce it. Both sides having nuke, especially a closed regime with history of continuous acts against one country is not an equal treatment.

Also, how about SK getting nuclear weapons?

When one side has nukes and the otherside does not, the side with nukes may attack more freely. The possiblity of retribution is greatly reduced. Having your capital city reduced to ash is a pretty large thing to risk.

It is of note that Argentina invaded Great Britain in 1982, so having nukes is not a 100% detterent against conventional invasion.

South Korea has a U.S. colony. It has nukes protecting it.

North Korea does not have a big history of foriegn interventions. It is surrounded by Superpowers, the U.S., China and Russia control it's borders. There is no one it can invade.

They haven't built nukes to attack, but rather defend. North Korea has been under blockade by the U.S. for decades. They have something of a seige mentality.

They are in a state of war and the U.S. refuses to declare peace. The U.S. was the last enemy to invade and maintains a military force on their border and regularly practises marine landings in the area.

One invasion in 1955, (or attempted liberation if you prefer), does not in anyway compare with the amount of U.S. foreign interventions. They have every reason to be scared of U.S. military action.

Less so now.

As to why a country might pretend to have nukes?

If I have a nuke you are less likely to attack me. Perhaps this illusion will give me the vital amount of time I need to finish my nukes.

Bluff and misinformation are a factor of war. A dogs bark is often enough to deter attack.

Personally I see no reason to believe they are bluffing.

[Myst9999 0]

Thinking completely strategically, the only way military action would ever succeed in an effective manner, without becoming an Iraq like quagmire (i.e. achieving a near full victory) with a vast loss of life in the south, is for a near impossible full evacuation of SK and tactical pre-emptive nuclear strikes on the North.

Such course of action is completely unacceptable, as most would agree.

And sanctions are ineffective as long as China continues to export food and fuel aid.

Diplomacy might be the only way, but it's been the "only way" for years, and we have still arrived at this juncture. To turn to the diplomatic table now would also appear as thought NK has effectively blackmailed countries into doing as it wishes. And the fear is that this will encourage other countries into developing nukes of their own to the same end.

Personally, this is one of the times when some form of military activity is justified. But only can the safety of SK civilians and the stationed US troops be secured with new defensive technologies such as THEL/ACTD and ATL.

I'm am not naive enough to think such things as acceptable. But I am also not naive enough to think of brushing this aside and letting them continue. When a country is determined to do something, it will happen.

As to the matter of double standards from other countries, the argument could be made that most of those already with nukes have shown responsibility. A country like NK with such indoctrinated citizens would have no such scruples.

[868 0]

When a country is determined to do something, it will happen.

You mean to be more precise, Kim Jong Il.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

It is of note that Argentina invaded Great Britain in 1982, so having nukes is not a 100% detterent against conventional invasion.

Not if the attacker has no realistic chance of threatening the existence of the state being attacked.

Quote[/b] ]

South Korea has a U.S. colony. It has nukes protecting it.

So I suppose chinese nukes are protecting North Korea then as well?

Quote[/b] ]

North Korea does not have a big history of foriegn interventions. It is surrounded by Superpowers, the U.S., China and Russia control it's borders. There is no one it can invade.

Are you kidding me? For a country of that size and economy it has been quite active, they were sponsoring the japanese red army, tried to assasinate the south korean officials numerous times (even in Burma), hijacked USS pueblo over 20km off their coast and even blew up an Korean Air airliner killing over 100 people for no real good reason.

Quote[/b] ]

They are in a state of war and the U.S. refuses to declare peace. The U.S. was the last enemy to invade and maintains a military force on their border and regularly practises marine landings in the area.

One invasion in 1955, (or attempted liberation if you prefer), does not in anyway compare with the amount of U.S. foreign interventions.

Do you honestly think if that North Korea decided to give up this bullshit US would invade?

Quote[/b] ]

They have every reason to be scared of U.S. military action.

They sure do for a good reason.

[PainDealer 0]

There is no one it can invade.

oh man... you don't believe they'd whoop some serious ass if the wanted to?

[crashdome 2]

They haven't built nukes to attack, but rather defend. North Korea has been under blockade by the U.S. for decades. They have something of a seige mentality.

They are in a state of war and the U.S. refuses to declare peace. The U.S. was the last enemy to invade and maintains a military force on their border and regularly practises marine landings in the area.

One invasion in 1955, (or attempted liberation if you prefer), does not in anyway compare with the amount of U.S. foreign interventions. They have every reason to be scared of U.S. military action.

Less so now.

As to why a country might pretend to have nukes?

If I have a nuke you are less likely to attack me. Perhaps this illusion will give me the vital amount of time I need to finish my nukes.

Bluff and misinformation are a factor of war. A dogs bark is often enough to deter attack.

Personally I see no reason to believe they are bluffing.

Umm... The Korean War never "ended". It has been at cease-fire since 1953. The only reason the US hasn't left is because the minute they do, NK can and will walk all over SK - it has been proclaimed by NK for a long time. The only "peace" NK wants is to assimilate SK into it's own twisted form of government and nothing less....

This is about the only war since WWII that I can officially say I personally approve of completely. There is not simply a possible threat here... it is a confirmed and serious threat by Kim himself.... I don't want to compare this to other wars, but the main difference between this and others is the fully functioning (and booming) democratic society that exists within half the nation already. This isn't about establishing freedom... it's about survival.

Note: I have my own concerns about stationing of troops there without actually doing anything, but that is beyond the scope of this war.

[Myst9999 0]

When a country is determined to do something, it will happen.

You mean to be more precise, Kim Jong Il.

Whilst the cult of personality surrounding Kim Jong Il in NK has a lot of influence on the people, it isn't the sole factor keeping the people under the government's thumb. Kim Jong Il may well hold considerable power and leverage, but it is still the generals that run the show.

A man whos purported to indulge in the finer things in life while his people starve probably has little time to manage his country. If he was to die tomorrow, the situation would change only slightly.

Also, on past history, America was determined to go into Iraq despite having no UN backing. So the statement could apply to all countries involved.

[InqWiper 0]

South Korea is supposed to receive equipment from Sweden on friday to help them determine weather or not there has been a nuclear detonation.

Ive read that North Korea is not able to make the nukes small enough yet to put them on a missile and launch it.

The blast was like 0.5-1kt, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about 15kt?

45 years ago there was 50 000kt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

[Baff2 0]

Quote[/b] ]

So I suppose chinese nukes are protecting North Korea then as well?

Quote[/b] ]

North Korea does not have a big history of foriegn interventions. It is surrounded by Superpowers, the U.S., China and Russia control it's borders. There is no one it can invade.

Are you kidding me? For a country of that size and economy it has been quite active, they were sponsoring the japanese red army, tried to assasinate the south korean officials numerous times (even in Burma), hijacked USS pueblo over 20km off their coast and even blew up an Korean Air airliner killing over 100 people for no real good reason.

Quote[/b] ]

They are in a state of war and the U.S. refuses to declare peace. The U.S. was the last enemy to invade and maintains a military force on their border and regularly practises marine landings in the area.

One invasion in 1955, (or attempted liberation if you prefer), does not in anyway compare with the amount of U.S. foreign interventions.

Do you honestly think if that North Korea decided to give up this bullshit US would invade?

Quote[/b] ]

They have every reason to be scared of U.S. military action.

They sure do for a good reason.

I honestly think that the U.S. would love to invade but doesn't have the military capability for decisive victory. And I don't see North Korea as the only party giving bullshit.

North Korea doesn't have an army poised ready to go on U.S. borders. How do you expect them to behave? Like the U.S. is not there?

Like U.S. civilians are not crying out for war and their leaders not making threats?

Why are the U.S. even there? The South wants re-unification. So does the North. It's not just the North Koreans prevaricating.

I do think that Russian and Chinese nukes have limited the willingness of the U.S. to consider using them in that theatre.

[Baff2 0]

There is no one it can invade.

oh man... you don't believe they'd whoop some serious ass if the wanted to?

Let's see, NATO is unable to invade Russia, China is unable to invade Russia.

NATO is unable to invade China, Russia is unable to invade China.

North Korea have tried to invade South Korea and failed once already....

Do you honestly think one of the worlds poorest countries can do what it's largest superpowers have been unable to?

They could start a big fight, but they couldn't win it.

[crashdome 2]

I honestly think that the U.S. would love to invade but doesn't have the military capability for decisive victory. And I don't see North Korea as the only party giving bullshit.

North Korea doesn't have an army poised ready to go on U.S. borders. How do you expect them to behave? Like the U.S. is not there?

Like U.S. civilians are not crying out for war and their leaders not making threats?

Why are the U.S. even there? The South wants re-unification. So does the North. It's not just the North Koreans prevaricating.

I do think that Russian and Chinese nukes have limited the willingness of the U.S. to consider using them in that theatre.

Are you completely out-of-touch?

The US has been doing nothing BUT trying to negotiate.

AFAIK, there have been no calls for war by any US citizens until this nuke thing.... and I live in the US. In fact, there were even excuses not to go to war with NK when the US was poised to strike Iraq for reasons less than NK gave.

Also, Kim Dea Jung's Sunshine Policy is nothing but goodwill gestures (undeserved in my opinion) towards a completely uncooperative and ruthless dictatorship which has up to this point done nothing to suggest any sort of cooperation. none what-so-ever... hell.. even Saddam Hussein allowed for inspections and gained more sympathy than this hack of a leader Kim Jong-il..

[PainDealer 0]

There is no one it can invade.

oh man... you don't believe they'd whoop some serious ass if the wanted to?

Let's see, NATO is unable to invade Russia, China is unable to invade Russia.

NATO is unable to invade China, Russia is unable to invade China.

North Korea have tried to invade South Korea and failed once already....

Do you honestly think one of the worlds poorest countries can do what it's largest superpowers have been unable to?

They could start a big fight, but they couldn't win it.

russia couldn't even invade finland in those 2 wars. and btw a few decades have passed my friend, there's a lot of potential in some small countries and it should have been learned by now *cough*'Nam*cough*

[Baff2 0]

Neither Vietnam nor Finland were or are capable of invading the U.S., Russia or China either.

If the U.S. was to leave Korea, the North could most likely overrun the place. But with them there? No chance.

Are you completely out-of-touch?

The US has been doing nothing BUT trying to negotiate.

AFAIK, there have been no calls for war by any US citizens until this nuke thing.... and I live in the US. In fact, there were even excuses not to go to war with NK when the US was poised to strike Iraq for reasons less than NK gave.

Also, Kim Dea Jung's Sunshine Policy is nothing but goodwill gestures (undeserved in my opinion) towards a completely uncooperative and ruthless dictatorship which has up to this point done nothing to suggest any sort of cooperation. none what-so-ever... hell.. even Saddam Hussein allowed for inspections and gained more sympathy than this hack of a leader Kim Jong-il.

This is the same U.S. that refuses bi-lateral talks? That won't sign a non aggression pact?

By negotiate, I meant negotiate with North Korea, not negotiate sanctions against it with everyone else.

What's there to negotiate anyway? If the U.S. doesn't want peace what have they got to talk about?

The food aid was a good bit of carrot and stick during the famine, but again if peace isn't an option, it's not going to convince them to give up their weapons programs.

Nothing is.

If thats all the U.S. wishes to discuss, I suppose it's wasting it's time anyway.

The Koreans say they will give up their nukes if the U.S. will give up theirs. This strangely reasonable negotiating position isn't going to go anywhere.

The North has co-operated with the south on a number of re-unification projects including repatriations, the opening of the borders, bulding road and rail links and a joint industrial park. North south trade is currenlty at about $1 billion a year.

Saddam wasn't in a position to refuse inspections. North Korea is.

[Garcia 0]

Neither Vietnam nor Finland were or are capable of invading the U.S., Russia or China either.

And where have anyone stated that Finland, Vietnam or North Korea would want to invade USA, China or Russia/Soviet?

Quote[/b] ]If the U.S. was to leave Korea, the North could most likely overrun the place. But with them there? No chance.

There's a tad bit difference here. South Korea isn't USA, contrary to what you seem to suggest...USA doesn't have their whole army stationed in South Korea.

North Vietnam managed successfully to invade South Vietnam and fight off USA. North Korea could get themself into the same situations as Finland during WWII and North Vietnam if they invaded and did it the right way, and thereby fight more of a defensive war than a offensive war. That I belive, was the meaning behind the examples. To show that a superpower can lose a war against a much weaker part.