So, seriously.....any ideas on how to deal with North Korea?

[Michael Tee]

MT's question was:

"PAUSE and ask yourself, what is the likelihood that "such folks" [folks who got technology or equipment from North Korea that enabled them to nuke the USA] would have a death wish for North Korea?"

sirs' answer was:

<<Because of the stance Krauthammer is suggesting, in the mold of JFK, that NK will cease to exist with any nuke detonated in the U.S.  Obviously, "such folks" don't care about NK being turned into a parking lot, as they use NK's nuclear technology in some effort to attack America.  Again, makes it a valid deterrent that NK not allow such to happen in the 1st place. >>

Fair enough.  But how likely is it that such irresponsible schmucks would be given nuclear technology by North Korea?  The death wish in that case would have to be North Korea's.

 <<Remember this is about preventing NK from selling it's Nukes.  That's the whole point of Krauhammer's piece, if you hadn't noticed>>

You still don't get that I AGREE Krauthammer's policy would be a deterrent to North Korea's selling its nukes.  Even a moron can see that.  So would JFK's policy be a deterrent to North Korea selling its nukes.  ("Supply nukes or know-how to anyone who nukes us and we'll nuke you.")

So there are TWO policies that will deter NK from selling its nukes or its know-how.  Kennedy's and Krauthammer's.  What is the DIFFERENCE between the two policies?

Kennedy policy:  U.S. gets hit, NK had nothing to do with it.  Result:  NK sits by on the sidelines while the US sorts out the perpetrator if it knows where the attack came from.  NK has absolutlely no reason to launch a strike on the U.S. and a good reason not to (it would be nuked if it did.)

Krauthammer policy:  U.S. gets hit, NK had nothing to do with it.  Result:  NK rushes to launch a second strike because it knows it's gonna be hit regardless of whether it had anything to do with the strike on the U.S. or not.  There is no more deterrence left in the Krauthammer policy.  The red line that it drew has already been crossed (i.e., an attack with or without North Korean participation has been launched at the U.S.)

sirs, I am sorry but I can't continue this discussion.  I really gave it my best efforts to explain this to you and I am afraid you will either get it or you won't.  In either event, if you don't get it this time, I give up.  Sorry.  I just can't devote any more time to this.

[sirs]

Krauthammer policy:  U.S. gets hit, NK had nothing to do with it......

Well, there's where your theory is blown completely out of the water, since that's 180degrees opposite of Krauthammer's policy.  But I can understand how fatiguing it must be for me to continually have to bring you back to what Krauthammer is actually suggesting.  By all means, move on to some mindless Bush bashing.  Hey, about some more of the asanine "Bush lied us into war" garbage.  Or how ruthless and torture advocating our military is.  You know, claim it, then claim how well Bush & co are covering up so well, to "prove it".  That doesn't require a lot of thought now, so knock yourself out

[Plane]

"Krauthammer's dipshit proposal for a deterrence policy that was aimed at deterring North Korea from transferring nuclear technology or know-how to unknown enemies of the US, who might use it to attack the U.S. while North Korea builds itself a plausible alibi defence ("We were all vacationing in Florida at the time!")  Krauthammer's brilliant idea was to give advance warning to the NK's that they would be held accountable (translation:  nuked!) if anyone nuked the US, whether or not NK had a hand in it.  Brilliantly, Krauthammer suggested that this policy could only work if the US had removed Iran's nuclear capability first, so that it would then be able to recognize NK as the "source" behind the technology of the rogue bomb.  "

I think Kroughthimer is entirely wrong.

It is unnecessacery to qualify the threat .

North Korea should be told that any nuclear explosion on American or American ally territory would be considered an act of war by North Korea.

This would mean that the only means for Korea to avoid anialation would be to make itself demonstrably clean of Nukes and get this geas lifted before anyone manages to get an Atom Bomb onto American territory.

The US posture twards the USSR did not change a bit when China developed an Atom Bomb , since that time China has apparently built only a small number of the useless things.

So I think that Kroughthimer needs to reconsider the potential of the deterance threat , we have in stock enough bombs to account for every large city and military instalation in Iran and Packistan and North Korea with plenty left over. Under the circumstances we might even be able to borrow a few from our allies if there were any shortfall.


MT opines that even after a nuclear atack American bloodlust would not amount to a wish to kill a very large number of persons in a scapegoat country.

I do not share MTs opinion ,after an event like the frying of Los Angeles , retaliation will be the popular thing.

[sirs]

I think that Kroughthimer needs to reconsider the potential of the deterance threat , we have in stock enough bombs to account for every large city and military instalation in Iran and Packistan and North Korea with plenty left over. Under the circumstances we might even be able to borrow a few from our allies if there were any shortfall.

So, the only real difference between you & Krauthammer is you'd use conventional bombs to turn NK into a parking lot vs a few nukes?  That's one opinion, though I find the deterrent imposed by a Nuclear response to be far much greater in it's attention grabbing

[Plane]

I think that Kroughthimer needs to reconsider the potential of the deterance threat , we have in stock enough bombs to account for every large city and military instalation in Iran and Packistan and North Korea with plenty left over. Under the circumstances we might even be able to borrow a few from our allies if there were any shortfall.

So, the only real difference between you & Krauthammer is you'd use conventional bombs to turn NK into a parking lot vs a few nukes?  That's one opinion, though I find the deterrent imposed by a Nuclear response to be far much greater in it's attention grabbing

No, I think that Atomic bombs would be the retaliation of choice in the curcumstance of an atomic atack.  Nutron bombs could be used to preserve the environment from the potential of massive fallout and nuclear winter , but on military targets, airbursts which were near enough the ground to wreck the equipment would be necessacery.

  In the case of North Korea one of the early targets would be the massive number of artillery tubes pointed at South Korea , for these well dug in cannon ,airbursts that would send overpressures down the tunnels might be acheved with small nuclear bombs that would be detonated near the gunports .
   
  If we can't damage these guns the People of South Korea will be sacrificed.

[sirs]

If we can't damage these guns the People of South Korea will be sacrificed.

I have no doubt, that in a military response, those guns will be crumbled dust pile

[Plane]

North Korea says "Bring it on"


Are we deterred from something?
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]



North Korea wants "peace but is not afraid of war," the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. 

The U.N. Security Council "resolution cannot be construed otherwise than a declaration of a war," the ministry said, calling the sanctions "a product of the U.S. hostile policy toward" North Korea. 

The ministry warned that if anyone used the U.N. resolution to infringe on the country's sovereignty, North Korea "will deal merciless blows at him through strong actions." 

The U.N. sanctions, approved Saturday, bans the sale of major arms to the North and orders the inspection of cargo to and from the country. It also calls for the freezing of assets of business supplying the North's nuclear and ballistic weapons programs. 

The North "will closely follow the future U.S. attitude and take corresponding measures," the statement said, without specifying what those measures would be. 
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/north-korea-says-un-sanctions-are-a/20061012052709990006

[Plane]

If we can't damage these guns the People of South Korea will be sacrificed.

I have no doubt, that in a military response, those guns will be crumbled dust pile

It would have to be quick, the first volley would kill a large number, the second volley following in seconds.


South Korea has had the guns of North Korea on their temple for fifty years.

[Michael Tee]

MT: <<Krauthammer policy:  U.S. gets hit, NK had nothing to do with it...... >>

sirs:  <<since that's 180 degrees opposite of Krauthammer's policy . . . >>

I was NOT describing Krauthammer's policy in the line that you quoted, I was describing an INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of his policy.  Can you not fucking read?

What I was describing was ONE KEY CONSEQUENCE of Krauthammer's policy.  North Korea would be hit as soon as the U.S. was hit WHETHER OR NOT THE U.S. could prove that North Korea was behind the hit.  Krauthammer thought he had found a way to deal with the problem of proof - - how could the U.S. prove that NK technology or know-how was behind the strike?  Krauthammer's brilliant solution:  let 'em know that they'd be hit whether or not the U.S. could prove it was thanks to them that the U.S. got nuked.

You know, I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I don't mind that you're so fucking stupid that you can't read the simplest concepts without getting them twisted beyond recognition.  I give you the benefit of the doubt that it is an innocent mistake and not a deliberate misrepresentation of my posts.  I find the patience to correct - - over and over and over again - - your misconceptions in logical, simple and easy-to-understand exposition.  But it would help - - enormously - - if you confined yourself to simple disagreement, pointing out my errors - - what you THINK of as my errors - - and just leaving it at that.  To add your childish, ignorant ad hominem rants <<By all means, move on to some mindless Bush bashing.  Hey, about some more of the asanine "Bush lied us into war" garbage.  Or how ruthless and torture advocating our military is.  You know, claim it, then claim how well Bush & co are covering up so well, to "prove it".  That doesn't require a lot of thought now, so knock yourself out>> does not improve the quality of the debate and does absolutely nothing to improve my respect for you as a person.  Bush DID lie you into a war, your military (AND your exective AND your legislature) ARE ruthless and evil in their pursuit of torture, the torture IS the subject of massive cover-ups and I never relied upon the cover-up as the sole proof of the facts.  So not only do you come across looking like a total ass-hole in your "debating" tactics, but like any other ass-hole, you come across as all fulla shit.

[Plane]

I was NOT describing Krauthammer's policy in the line that you quoted, I was describing an INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of his policy. 

We need not worry about North Korea being shot with Atom Bombs while innocent, they are already far from innocent.


Imagine that you are walking past Tom and Jack , Tom calls you Satan and Jack accuses you of stealing his stuff, Tom is smacking his palm with an axe handle and Jack is takeing practice swings with a cricket bat.
You keep on walking and hope that they will not hurt you but you feel a blow from a stick , seems that your collar bone is now broken.

You spin about ,drawing your gun and shoot......


I don't think Tom will tell you that you shot innocent Jack.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't think Tom will tell you that you shot innocent Jack.>>

Assuming that Jack is the guy who did NOT strike the blow on my back, but saw Tom wind up, swing, and strike me:  the essence of the Krauthammer policy would be that I am gonna kill both, whether one of them swung at me or not.  From Jack's point of view, he (Jack) would have to be an idiot NOT to start shooting at me as soon as Tom lands his first blow.

What the Krauthammer policy would actually accomplish, would be to guarantee a second strike from somebody who had no intention of launching any strike. 

[Michael Tee]

<<We need not worry about North Korea being shot with Atom Bombs while innocent, they are already far from innocent.>>

Well, in the first place, I would worry about nuking a country that did not attack me or mine.  Having nuclear weapons, being ready to defend oneself with them against the U.S.A. if need be and bad-mouthing the U.S.A. are NOT justification for incinerating millions of human beings in a country that did not attack you.  Just because YOU may lack a functioning conscience does not mean that the rest of the world is similarly deficient.

However, you apparently misread my posts, which have absolutely nothing to do with "worrying" about North Korea getting nuked. 

As I have tried to make clear, my posts relate to a peculiarly nutty proposal of Charles Krauthammer's, and my "worry" as expressed in the posts is about what North Korea would do to the U.S. if the Krauthammer policy were in effect.  Specifically, the Krauthammer policy, which wouldn't have any more deterrent effect that a normal policy of nuclear deterrence,  would strongly encourage North Korea to launch a second nuclear strike on the U.S. if the U.S. were ever to be hit by somebody else's first nuclear strike.

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is China's problem much more than it is the US's problem. It is also a bigger problem for South Korea and Japan.

NK is close to all the other countries and could use their nukes as well as their much more numerous conventional weapons on them as well.

The Russians share a border with N.Korea, and the US does not, so it's probably a bigger problem for them, although that part of Russia is not heavily populated nor economically significant.

China and S. Korea together could probably pull off some sort of coup if they could enlist the aid of the NK Army.

The CIA and other US intel services have proven to be a collection of overpaid, incompetent, blundering sycophants, if for no other reason than they only reach conclusions that agree with the incompetent, blundering assortment of warmongering assholes that include Juniorbush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and Negroponte.

I imagine that there may be a few knowledgeable officials in US Intel that need to be heard. The US does have a sizeable number of Korean Americans and has every reason, after 55 years of occupation bases in SK, to know more about NK than it did about Iraq, after all. The problem would be getting the voices of these competent intel people heard over the sound of the water gently slapping up against John Negroponte's ample flab as he spends his days in some sort of hot tub, I hear.

Krauthammer is clearly nuts, but could be useful to spew disinformation.

As Andy Rooney said, a sane NK citizen might consider it entirely useful for his country to have nuclear weapons, as a deterrent. It is more logical for Kim to claim that he is protecting his people with a nuclear program than it is for Juniorbush to claim that invading Iraq was necessary to protect the US, which it clearly wasn't.

It is ideal from any country's point of view, that it have a bigger army and better weapons than any conceivable enemy. But this is not possible: everyone cannot have the biggest army and the best weapons.

It would be better for the people of every country  if NO ONE had any nukes at all.

[Michael Tee]

Apparently some folks are having trouble understanding my take on Krauthammer's proposal.  The difficulty seems to be that they do not believe North Korea is innocent and pure of any evil intentions toward the U.S.A.

That is not my argument.  So far, North Korea has not attacked the U.S.A. with nukes.  We may conclude that this is not due to any benevolent intentions on the part of North Korea, but simply a healthy fear of the normal deterrent policy, the Kennedy-like policy of deterrence that says, "Nuke me and I'll nuke you."

We can't know North Korea's intentions but I think it's a safe bet that they will continue to refrain from striking directly at the U.S.A.  They may or may not refrain from trading nuclear secrets.

If they do trade nuclear secrets, they obviously are not deterred by any threat of retaliation against trading secrets.  So if the U.S. attacks them in retaliation for trading the secrets beforehand, they will deserve the retaliation but the deterrence policy will have failed.  

Krauthammer's policy is supposed to make them even more afraid to trade nuclear secrets, because if the secrets enable anyone to hit the U.S.A., NK will be hit whether or not the U.S. knows it was them.  So from their point of view, better not to trade any secrets because if that helps anybody hit the US, whether or not the US knows it was us, we are gonna be nuked in return.

Let's suppose the Krauthammer policy "worked" - - the North Koreans were too scared to let their nuclear secrets out of their own hands.  Now somebody else nukes the U.S.A. - - not North Korea, but they're fucked anyway.  As a result of Krauthammer's policy, they are going to get nuked for something that somebody else did.  Something that they had no hand in whatsoever.  What kind of idiots would they have to be NOT to nuke the U.S.A. as soon as possible after it got hit, since the U.S. is going to nuke them anyway?  Krauthammer has guaranteed that North Korea would launch a second nuclear strike after somebody else - - anybody else - - had launched a first.

[Plane]

Could you further define a "normal" deterance policy?