OK, so we're invading N. Korea now, right? No?

Don't they supply terrorists with weapons like the Iraqis?

Don't they have weapons of mass destruction like the Iraqis?

Haven't they expressed hostility to our way of life the Iraqis?

Don't they have oil like the Iraqis? No? Oh. I see. Nevermind.

*10-17-02 01:32:14 AM Joseppi7
The U.S. is unwilling to sacrifise the numbers of soldiers it would take somewhere like Korea. We wont use nukes.

Iraq is a gamble that could pay off great with Iraqi people showering our soldiers in rose petals or it could be incredibly costly if they decide to resist.

Just my opinion.*


The real stumbling block of the Iraqi military is the Republican Guard. It is the only force currently in Iraq that has decent morale, good training, and good equipment. I believe that it is around 30,000 strong. The regular Iraqi army is in a good amount of shambles, last I heard. Their airforce is down to 1/2 its operational strength and 1/2 of those planes can't even fly.

The bottom line: we can completely wipe the floor out in open combat...say in the desert or a field. However, when we are in an urban setting, most of our technological superiority becomes nullified. Tanks lose their range advantage, aircraft bombing becomes a friendly fire problem, and infantry gets bogged down in an infinite maze of enemy defenses...If they choose to make it hard for us...we will have to work for a victory.

I wonder if their nukes will come with a 10 year, 10 Megaton guarantee?

I bet the North Koreans would have better luck getting Mayonaise to Fission..

Kim Jung Suk Fung Il Sung mung dung:

"can we make a bomb from Cork? .. what about Noodles.. can noodles make a mushroom cloud? .. damn .. my collar needs more starch.."

Eraser8, I doubt Bush is sensible or economically minded enough to invade anywhere for oil. Break this down into GWB thinking. Am I going to invade Iraq because I want to secure a large supply of Middle Eastern oil? Or am I going to invade Iraq cuz Saddam tried to kill my paw?

Logicsfist, that's where enemy defectors and the Land Warrior project comes in handy. Last time it was tested, the lethality and the survivability of soldiers with the Land Warrior equipment doubled.

Oh yeah and those tests were specifically designed to measure urban combat.

lets face it.. the Iraqi army will wilt.. the people will rise up.. saddam's body will be dragged through the streets and quartered... in fact.. i bet the pentagon already has a contingency plan in place for recovering his Torso from just such a situation

Well ... isn't that special ... guess we should turn them in to a glowing parking lot before they actually develop reliable missile technology capable of parking one (or more) of these things in one (or more) of our cities. After all, we've been talking about reducing our glow-in-the-dark stockpile for some time ...

War never decides who's right, only who's left.

*let the flamewar begin*

okay so... lets make sure that we're the only ones left... if we cant.. you bet your ass that someone will at OUR expense..

i'm for Paving Pyongyang.. are you?

i'm for Shaving Pogue23.. are you?

thats fine, Tadlette... just make sure you dont miss my Taint, like the last whore..

No-one could miss your taint, literally or figuratively. It's everywhere.

Um...would it be OK if we wait on nuking North Korea until I'm no longer sitting ten miles south of it?

All jokes aside ... who wants one of these running through your back yard (and munching on your pet rottweiler)?

*Jgaynor - 747 THATS A GIANT farkIN' FLYING LASER MAN!*

Val Kilmer surrenders.

Sorry, had to do it. And as noted, this thing is only useful as an anti-ICBM weapon if:
--you know for sure that the enemy is going to fire, so you can get your toy to the hot zone first
--you have air superiority, and can thus fly your relatively lumbering 747(personally I'd remount the system on a B-52, they're tougher, but eh) through what SHOULD be some wicked air defenses. You didn't think countries with ICBMs wouldn't have them well defended against airstrikes, did you?
and somebody refresh my memory, why wouldn't kicking up some of our existing all-aspect anti-aircraft missiles(ex. an improved Phoenix or AMRAAM) do the same trick? Launched from pylons under a B-52 if it's the loitering power you like, or from under fighters if it's speed you need?

Ah, but where's the fun in that? Besides, once you HAVE a laser than can melt steel at a mile away, imagine what other fun you can have with it. Why limit yourself to just missiles?

Anyway, deja vu.
Last time, Vietnam had crazy guerrilla warriors, and China.
This time they have nukes, and China.

Damn...

Sweater Girl

"Or am I going to invade Iraq because they pose a very serious potential threat to the people I serve?"

You don't really believe that do you ?

Or am I going to invade Iraq because they pose a very serious potential threat to the people I serve?

No, you remembered that one. It was the first one you listed, in fact.

What, you didn't think that any politician, especially not Bushie-boy, actually lives to serve the little people, the constituency, did you?

Money talks...

Ishidan

"*Jgaynor - 747 THATS A GIANT farkIN' FLYING LASER MAN!*"

I wanna know what happens when the laser misses. Instant vaporisation of whichever earth co-ordinates it was unfortunately pointing at? Moral of the story - don't be underneath that plane :)

Perhaps they fire from below to get around this. In that case I'd be mightily amused if a miss took out a few billion dollar spy satellites.

Regardless, I would like to borrow the laser and get some payback on those pricks who ruined the last movie I saw by shining red lasers between the actors eyes, breasts, and butt cheeks. I promise, I'll be v..e..r..y careful not to miss :)

It was a secret? I have always thought it was the best known secret, you know like how Area 51 is a "secret" base.

There have been many reports on N. Korea having a working Nuclear weapons program. They also have a working Biological, and chemical weapons program.

Wait a minute, I just realized the U.S. is criticizing another nation for not honoring the anti-proliferation treaty. Anyone else find that a bit odd?

Sweater Girl

Let the inspectors in.

Amen :) Start the right way and escalate if we have to. I don't think we'll have to, Saddy sees the writing is on the wall.

..don't you think Saddam shot himself in the foot with the splitting hairs of the UN agreement

He is proud leader in the tradition of most middle east despotic rulers - remember, big man wouldn't be much without some chest beating. Even in Japan and Germany we left the people and non-war leaders their pride, everything that's been said and done in this case was carefully calculated to make Saddam angry and stubborn. It's pretty obvious they wanted him to blow his stack and tell the UN to go shove it, easy in for King George II.

He definitely broke the the UN terms of his surrender and that was a stupid thing to do regardless of the consquences. Problem is that since the US blocked or vetoed around 26 resolutions aimed at making Israel accountable for its own violations, the security council were scarcely about to take Saddam to task for his. He had been co-operating in point if not in spirit for around five years after all.

The terms he originally agreed to for inspections were the terms he accepted in the first round of these negotiations, exactly the same ones we set at the conclusion of the war. Then the US decided those weren't good enough after his capitulation and we needed new, very very tough, ones. Perhaps again, ones designed to make sure he'd baulk, just like the supposedly wonderful concessions Sharon apparently keeps making to the Palestinians are designed to ensure they cannot acutally be accepted, by either the leader or the people.

How would you feel about being forceably removed from your country and interrogated just because you were working at a government weapons facility. This whole bit is directly aimed at trying to find some evidence that Saddam even once talked about bombing Israel or a western target. If this doen't work, start a fight with a random guard. Insult him, step on his toes, then shoot him when he complains. When other guards try to retaliate, shoot them and start a nice little firefight. Then the long arm of the Shrub storms in, claims resistance, kills Saddam, and after the fact says it was justified.

If you have a belief vacuum, what the hell have I got. It's practically a black hole at this point :(

Let the inspectors in.

One political cartoonist summed up the hazard of this approach.
Politician 1: "So, if Saddam lets the inspectors in, what if they find...nothing? Are we willing to...ah...apologize? To Saddam?"

*every other politician in the room backs away, horrified grimaces on their faces*

Bush asking for weapon inspection was a feint. He was counting on Saddam hardlining. Now he's gotta make new shiat up.

Wait a minute, I just realized the U.S. is criticizing another nation for not honoring the anti-proliferation treaty. Anyone else find that a bit odd?

No...I don't see anything wrong with a country that still maintains enough nukes and biochem weapons to wipe out entire continents complaining that other countries might get some. Why, where's the problem? :-p

OK, something's up in North Korea's regime.

First, they admit out of nowhere that they kidnapped Japanese citizens, and a few may still be alive (Tadlette: they haven't been returned yet, AFAIK). Next, they admit to one of the worst-kept secrets in global politics, their nuclear weapons program. Add to this the attempt at creating a capitalist economic zone, continued attempts to reunite families split after the Korean War... perhaps a few cooler heads are starting to prevail over there.

Perhaps.

There's still a nasty famine, and it's still pretty much the last state on Earth that can be accurately described as Stalinist, but there's a decent chance the strongly centralist regime will open up to external assistance and new ideas; North Korea's regime been extremely isolationist, to the point of absurdity, since the war.

No point in bombing the DPRK - I think events will take care of themselves organically.

Main point is there is absolutely no way to stop other countries from making nukes. In reality it isn't even remotely fair that we're trying.

We can have them, you can't tho. How hypocritical.

If it was me, I'd be muttering 'You think?' and going away to build a few asap.

We say they can't be trusted not to use them, and I reply - yes, probably while they have nothing to lose but miserable oppressed desert existances, no infrastructure, no economy, no future (it's not like we're going to let them have one they determine for themselves) indeed there isn't much to hold them back.

Give them something to lose, peace, happy lives, children that have a chance of living to adulthood, something to attain or strive for besides mere existance and suddenly the thought of the retaliation would be worse than the glory of taking out a few infidels.

The main focus of the UN at this time is to drag these primitive governments and economies up out of the dark ages and give them something to lose. It helps them on a purely humanitarian basis, but the big payoff is that the world eventually becomes a place where peace and safety can be reasonably expected.

Oh, since Iraq came up... point to ponder.

Operation Desert Fox was intended to punish Iraq for blocking weapons inspections (the reason for that interference, real or falsified, I'll leave aside for the moment).

It accomplished... precisely nothing. Inspectors didn't go back in, the U.S. government didn't push for inspectors to go back in until after you-know-when, and quite frankly I find the whole thing now has a bad taste of using 3000 deaths to justify unilateral imposition of one government's global plans via military coercion and force.

Back to North Korea... Boucher said "support for terrorism" is one reason North Korea is on the Axis... what support? Selling arms to Iran?

PlatinumDragon they came home today. It was a very moving scene. Really, I can't even begin to imagine how they must have been feeling.

This link doesn't have the picture so I might keep looking, its worth a zillion words.

Platinum, a government can have what weapons it wants, as long as it toes the line.

But step outside the G8, IMF, World Bank system and.....

Doh, thats the 'will be coming home' page.

This is one, here is another

biochem weapons

This is to all that are wondering what is the US policy for the use of Chemical and Biological weapons.

We only have enough biological and chemical weapons for training and testing purposes (like testing protective gear such as the m40 series protective masks and newer protective equipment.) My MOS in the US Army is 54b10 which is a chemical operation specialist. The official policy of the United States is that if another nation uses BC weapons on us we will nuke them. To my understanding this policy has been in place since 72. I think this policy was called the Biological and toxin weapons convention.

Unlike the Former USSR our nuclear weapons do not carry Biological or Chemical weapons as a secondary weapon.

So if any nation uses Biological or Chemical weapons on the US we well not in turn use Biological or Chemical weapons on them. Instead we will use nuclear weapons against them.

This is to my understanding the current rules of engagement of the US military.

We cannot even use Choking agents (CS gas, and things on those lines) on the battle field, unless we are using it for defensive purposes...

So here is the run down:

Biological: We will never use in warfare; minimal stock is kept for defensive research only.

Chemical: We will never us in warfare; minimal stock is kept for defensive research only.

Herbicides: We have renounced the use of this weapon during war (which is not consider a chemical weapon for some reason), except for where it is applicable in domestic use.

riot control: This is where choking agents come in, which is a non-persistent agent. This is renounced in the sense of first use during war, and if it is used it is used for defense purposes only. What that means is if we do use it for defense during war, we are also not allowed to shoot at the enemy while they are incapacitated due to the CS gas. I think that is part of the Geneva Convention but I am not sure.

And if any WDM weapons are to be used it would have to be approved directly from the Commander and Chief. WDM weapons are your NBC weapons excluding Choking agents and Herbicides. He will most likely be approving the use of Nukes and not BC weapons...

Now if you are a conspiracy nut, you will think we have crap loads of BC weapons, so what I said above would not mean anything to you.

I would like to add, that i have been told by several high ranking people within the military that one of the reaons that Saddam did not use chemical or biological weapons during the gulf war is due to the fact that he was told out right that if he did we would nuke his country.

"Unlike the Former USSR our nuclear weapons do not carry Biological or Chemical weapons as a secondary weapon"

You know to the rest of us it seems the US are just itching for a chance to use another nuke. The love affair with this most disgusting of weapons astonishes us, they not only kill but poison the enemies land and give him cancer and deformed children - how could you possibly ever use one or wish for one to be used ?

Its 1,000 year revenge, that's why. The haters and the war nuts would love the sound of generations of hate and death being wished to america over nuke use. It would justify their own hatred and give them lost more opportunities to kill brown infidels, oops muslims.

Really - you'd be better off using a chemical or bio-weapon. At least their children might be able to come back and live on that land, or grow crops on it.

Use a nuke and lose the rest of us for good.

lost = lots, even

ChemRat54B, you do know the history of US use of biological weapons in Cuba?

And Chemical weapons in Vienam?

Another interesting point is the US govts blocking of a new Protocol on biological weapons.


"The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972 prohibits the development and stockpiling of biological weapons. Because the BWC has no means to verify compliance with the Convention, it has not prevented the proliferation of biological weapons even in some countries that are parties to the Convention. The international community recently had an unusual opportunity to strengthen the BWC by enacting a protocol, which an Ad Hoc Group of States Parties began negotiating in Geneva in 1996. The negotiations resulted in a compromise proposed protocol in 2001, which requires investigations and on-site visits within the geographic boundaries of the States that are party to the protocol.[1]


While there is wide support among nations for a protocol, the United States has rejected the proposed protocol on grounds that it would be ineffective in preventing BW development and use and would compromise national security by revealing US defensive strategies for BW."

http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/protocol_ce.htm

Not that they have anything to hide, they just dont want inspectors.....

Harmonia: Check out this link. Israel are flying war planes over Lebanon and threatening to start a war over 'unilateral measures' taken by Lebanon. They built a water pump for chissakes !

Go Israel, just make it alll worse. I think the US are definate going to end up in a war in the middle east. Even if they somehow avoid this one, Israel will drag them into another soon after.

Yay people ! We suck !

Hi tadlette!



Lebanese enjoying the aformentioned water!

According to the Jerusalem post the only reason tey have not bombed it yet is that they dont want to mess up Dubyas war:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid =1034777553643

What the hell do we do about Israel ?!? What can anyone do ? They don't listen, they laugh at the UN, they ignore the US, currently target civilians as a POLICY for chrissakes ... there 'might' be terrorists hiding amoung them being the rationale, and change the curfew times allowing them to shoot civilians mistakenly out after dark. To date, mostly kids (11/15). Check it out for yourself, I posted the link to Fark so you Total Farkers should be able to find it. Title is something about the kids getting a bullet for christmas.

If anyone else did this they would end up like Milosovitch, in an international jail awaiting war crime trials.

I hate to say this, but if they start a war I say let them finish it alone. The problem is that this time _they_ have nukes, and Mecca might end up a glowing radioactive whole in the ground. And that would start a million year war, kiddies. There goes the neighbourhood.

Flim Springfield

Doh, it was "kids getting a bullet for halloween" not christmas.

Ahhh the Pentagon have decided they hate Rumsfeld. They think he's a nut. Most of the top generals are saying they will be resigning after christmas in protest.

Don't let him near those nuke buttons, people :)

With any luck the mutiny begins here.

Harmonia: if you don't read www.antiwar.com, you should. Takes all the trouble out of getting updates, I think they do a daily worldwide news search for 'war' then include the mainstream media articles with the best information in them. Excellent resource.

Doh, secretaries not generals. I need to take a comprehension class :(

"We should dispense with the aspirations to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism . . . We should cease to talk about vague and-for the Far East-unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization.

The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts . . . [We] should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas remain in hands which we can control or rely on."

--George Kennan, U.S. State Department, Director of Policy Planning, 1948.

Source: U.S. State Department, "Policy Planning Study," Feb. 24, 1948 (reprinted in U.S.SD's "Foreign Relations of the United States," 1948).

Looks like they dusted this one off and are re-using it.

"American strategic [nuclear] forces do not exist solely for the purpose of deterring a Soviet nuclear threat or attack against the U.S. itself. Instead, they are intended to support U.S. foreign policy."

--Colin Gray, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Source: "Victory is Possible," Foreign Policy, Summer 1980.

"No enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the [United Nations] Security Council."

- UN Charter, Chapter VIII, Article 53, signed by the U.S. in 1945.

Tadlette, its time for the UN to stand up for itself, show some backbone and do whatever Dubya tells it!

:)

So what the US will blow up Korea now. Korean war part 2???!!