North Korea Launches Missile/Rocket

[PapaG]

Our State Department and Japan verify.

Now what?

 

[PapaG]

Test range apparently fell short of US.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

bow down?

 

[Nate4Prez]

bow down?

lol

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

If only someone would assassinate Lil' Kim

This Lil' Kim

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I was Kim Il Jong for haloween a few years ago....that was an awesome costume.

 

[Sug]

Should we invade? Then we can spend another trillion rebuilding North Korea while we let our country decay!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Should we invade? Then we can spend another trillion rebuilding North Korea while we let our country decay!!!!!!!!!!!

or they can just bomb honolulu.

 

[MARIS61]

Should we invade? Then we can spend another trillion rebuilding North Korea while we let our country decay!!!!!!!!!!!

Pick up a history book.

We tried invading them once before, and got our asses handed to us in a huge way.

We've already bankrupted our country's financial future by murdering half of Iraq, while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the way of providing increased security or safety to our country.

We don't have, and can't borrow, the money that would be required to go to war with Korea. It would have to be a nuclear war, and most of us would not survive.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I feel safer.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Pick up a history book.

We tried invading them once before, and got our asses handed to us in a huge way.

We've already bankrupted our country's financial future by murdering half of Iraq, while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the way of providing increased security or safety to our country.

We don't have, and can't borrow, the money that would be required to go to war with Korea. It would have to be a nuclear war, and most of us would not survive.

LOL at trying to spout revisionist history about Korean War. We lost 50000 people in the entire war, and that's including the losses in their initial sneak assault against horribly trained and equipped Army units at less than half nominal strength. (We didn't invade them. They invaded the South. And we led the UN multinational effort.) Battle of Chosin Reservoir? 20000 Marines and soldiers against upwards of 150,000 Chinese? We lose 857 Marines and around 2000 soldiers as 5:1 underdogs....they lose upwards of 35k as we fight our way through a fortified encirclement back to South Korea, taking our dead with us. "Asses handed to us in a huge way".

LOL at how you think "most of us would not survive" a nuclear war with Korea. What do you think the blast radius and 50% Pk are for a warhead? How many warheads do you think North Korea has? How do you presume they'll get warheads over here? I imagine you think China will launch defending NK? How many missiles do you think the PLA has? Or will every missile in the rest of the world be launched at us, including those in Beautiful Central Oregon?

"accomplishing absolutely nothing in the way of providing increased security or safety to our country." I can't even deride that as a talking point, since I can't think of a single credible media source that has espoused that idea. Where do you get these ideas, and why? Does it make you feel better?

 

[Nate4Prez]

I feel safer.

Honestly?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Honestly?

Yes.

Like I said, destabilzing the fucked up middle east is good. Get western influence in there, and over time it will be for the better.

 

[barfo]

Yes.

Like I said, destabilzing the fucked up middle east is good.

Yeah, it was way too stable, that was the big problem.

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

yeah, stable with a fucked up bunch of peeps~

 

[Natebishop3]

Pick up a history book.

We tried invading them once before, and got our asses handed to us in a huge way.

We've already bankrupted our country's financial future by murdering half of Iraq, while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the way of providing increased security or safety to our country.

We don't have, and can't borrow, the money that would be required to go to war with Korea. It would have to be a nuclear war, and most of us would not survive.

Brianfromwa pretty much kicked your ass on this one, but I want to hit home the fact that we were fighting the Chinese in that war... not so much the Koreans. Unless China is planning on interceding in this one too, it would be quick and painless.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Tough situation for a young administration and Obama sure has his hands full so early into his presidency. I like his initial response to the launch . . . let's see how persuasive he is on the rest of the world leaders:


"North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles," Obama said in a speech on nuclear proliferation in the Czech Republic.

"This provocation underscores the need for action — not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council — but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons. Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," he said.

"Now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons," Obama said to applause. "All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime ... we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course."

 

[Sug]

Brianfromwa pretty much kicked your ass on this one, but I want to hit home the fact that we were fighting the Chinese in that war... not so much the Koreans. Unless China is planning on interceding in this one too, it would be quick and painless.

Has Iraq been painless?

 

[julius]

Has Iraq been painless?

As much as one wouldn't think so, the actual theme song to M*A*S*H (Suicide is painless) is beautiful.

 

[Sinobas]

LOL at trying to spout revisionist history about Korean War. We lost 50000 people in the entire war,

Oh, only 50,000? I guess that's why they called it a "police action".

and that's including the losses in their initial sneak assault against horribly trained and equipped Army units at less than half nominal strength.

Well, phfft... those guys shouldn't even count.

As long as we killed more Chinks than they did us, I'd say we were victorious!

 

[julius]

LOL at trying to spout revisionist history about Korean War. We lost 50000 people in the entire war

As a jumping off point (and not necessarily a response to your post), it is an interesting note that, iirc, Vietnam had about 59K killed in the (let's say 8 year) period that the War was happening. One could argue how long the war lasted, but that just muddies the waters.

I would like to use the years that were the "peak" of Vietnam, if you can say such a thing about a war, where the US had causalities of about 39K. These deaths occurred between 1967 and 1969.

It should also be pointed out that the 50,000 lost in Korea was during a 3 year period, and that it's a much higher mortality rate than Vietnam. Although WW2 had 400,000+ in 4 years (but in the time since WW2 ended, and Vietnam and Korea (and later day Iraq 1 and Iraq2/Afghanistan\, the technology of guns and armor has improved, as has the training of troops. So one could argue those #'s are inflated).

I realize this didn't really ad much to the discussion, but I think they're important factors to remember.

 

[Natebishop3]

Has Iraq been painless?

Removing the Iraqi government sure as hell was. What makes you think this would be an occupation?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

controversial opinions:

we lost the iraq war
nuclear war isn't a fucking option
dark knight was a terrible movie

 

[Natebishop3]

controversial opinions:

we lost the iraq war
nuclear war isn't a fucking option
dark knight was a terrible movie

The Iraq war technically isn't over, so we haven't lost yet. You could make an argument that we are losing though.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that nuclear war is not an option. Whether you believe in military action or not, you'd have to be a complete moron to misunderstand the implications of nuclear war.

Dark Knight owned (with the exception of Maggie Gyllenhal or however you spell her name).

 

[julius]

controversial opinions:

we lost the iraq war
nuclear war isn't a fucking option
dark knight was a terrible movie

Woah woah woah...whats this about Dark knight?!

 

[PapaG]

The Iraq war technically isn't over, so we haven't lost yet. You could make an argument that we are losing though.

OK. Make that argument. My friends and relatives in Iraq tell me a different story.

 

[maxiep]

Pick up a history book.

We tried invading them once before, and got our asses handed to us in a huge way.

We've already bankrupted our country's financial future by murdering half of Iraq, while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the way of providing increased security or safety to our country.

We don't have, and can't borrow, the money that would be required to go to war with Korea. It would have to be a nuclear war, and most of us would not survive.

LOL, we invaded North Korea? I guess the French and Soviets also invaded Germany in the mid-1940s.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The Iraq war technically isn't over, so we haven't lost yet. You could make an argument that we are losing though.

I say it's over and we lost. Given our original stated objectives (to be greeted as liberators, find all the WMDs and be home in time for dinner,) it was a monumental failure.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that nuclear war is not an option. Whether you believe in military action or not, you'd have to be a complete moron to misunderstand the implications of nuclear war.

I'll let BrianFromWA cover this one. Brian?

Dark Knight owned (with the exception of Maggie Gyllenhal or however you spell her name).

Come on, it was terrible. First of all, Bale sounded like he gargled with razorblades and comet every time he had the batsuit on.

The joker was awful. They couldn't decide whether or not he should be the classic joker, like when he had the nurse's outfit on (which was the only good part), or if he should be some whiny emo joker who asks, "Wanna know how I got my scars?" I half expected him to just tell everyone to check his Deadjournal to find out. LAME.

The pacing was blundered. It started too slow and then by the end it was going at whirlwind speed like they slapped it all together the night before. The fucking movie was like 3 hours and they still went from "We don't know where they are!" to "We know where they are because I'm there and I can see see through fucking walls all of a sudden" in the course of about 5 confusing minutes.

The whole thing had this terrible Michael Bay feel to it with explosions and cars flipping over and high tech blah blah blah. By the end, I didn't care what happened, I was BORED. I loved Batman Begins (mainly for the first half of the movie, really) and would have loved for Dark Knight to have lived up to that in the slightest, but it didn't. I mean, they have Christian fucking Bale, who is an absolute genius, and they stuck him in a rubber suit and gave him laryngitis while they spent all their time on Heath Ledger acting crazy because his parents didn't understand him. Arghghghhfghfdg.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Not that I'm a die-hard proponent of nuclear war, but to say it's always wrong is being a) naive, b) short-sighted or c) not really in tune with the argument.

For instance, one could argue (and most of western history has) that dropping the 2 bombs was unprecedented and horrible in how many civilians were killed. It was unprecedented only because of the mode. Two airplanes, two bombs. Around 140,000 killed. Horrible by any measure. But not nearly (imho) as horrible as the 150,000 or so who were killed on March 9-10 by 300 B-29's dropping thousands of tons of burning jelly on Tokyo. At least you generally go quickly when a nuke is dropped on you. Prehistoric napalm? No thank you. And that's just one of the dozen or so mass bombing raids from February to August 1945 JUST AGAINST TOKYO. Estimates are that between 500,000 and a million were burned in these incendiary attacks. But the attention of so many is focused on the big, bad nuc-u-lear bomb.

Let's look at Truman's reasons. These are rehashed all over most military history books and the internet, but basically by killing 140,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (aside: I saw last year the Japanese recognized a man who'd been a survivor of both) the war ended without an invasion of Japan that would likely have cost a few hundred thousand American soliders' and marines' lives and a maybe a million Japanese. The Japanese weren't paying attention to the Potsdam Declaration, and even after Hiroshima were talking about fighting to the death for their land. Fortunately, after Nagasaki (and the last firebombing of Tokyo on the 15th) the Emperor came to his senses and declared an armistice to allow unconditional surrender. Wasn't happening without the 2 nuclear bombs. So there is a time and place.

That said, this isn't one of them. First, Japan's potentially our biggest ally in this particular fight, and they abhor anything nuclear. Weapons, plants, utilities, waste....forget it. (Understandable, I guess). So we'd be alienating our friend in the region.

Second, you don't need nukes to take out North Korea's nuclear strongholds. Conventional weapons would work just fine.

Third, tactical nukes would probably be a bad idea with the close proximity our troops would have to theirs. It's bad planning to nuke your own guys, even with "small" tactical ones.

Fourth, Russia's the only other country right now (unless China's new ballistic missile subs have outfitted with their new MRBM, which my last intel said they didn't) that can touch the US with a missile-carried nuclear warhead. North Korea can't even get a "satellite" into orbit with the missile, and you think they could target the US with enough accuracy to be a "deterrent"? Nah. And Russia (last I heard, could have changed) wasn't exactly screaming to help the fraternal communist brethren of Kim Jong Il's persuasion.

Though I'll say this. If something (Heaven forbid) does happen in terms of a WMD going off and killing Americans in the US; whether it's dropped from a plane, planted in a suitcase, flown as an ICBM, whatever....stand by. The only WMDs we have are nukes, and our stated policy is "reciprocate in kind".

On an aside, I didn't like Maggie Gyllenhall as much as Katie Holmes, was sorry how it ended, thought it was pretty long, loved Two-Face in "Thank you for Smoking"; and thinks that since Saddam's terrorist-harboring oppressive 3-war-starting regime was gone, no WMDs have been used in a decade, there have been democratic elections in a place that hasn't had them in almost 30 years, infrastructure is being built up (our mistake in helping out the Afghans in the 80's), and there's been enough turnover of duties to the Iraqi police/military that our National Command Authority deemed that we were taking our troops out and moving them to Afghanistan, I'd call it at least a solid "C". Especially since it's at the cost over 5 years of less than double the citizens who died in NYC.