Obama has responded as one would expect: by promptly announcing that he will cut the missile defense program.
This shows Obama’s deep insight into the psychology of other nations and groups who say (and that’s all it is, talk) they oppose us. Kim Jong Il will now of course realize that America isn’t the threat he had feared, now that we are weakening our defense against any missiles he might in the future launch that actually are developed enough to work, and obviously will dismantle his program. It was all America’s fault for being too threatening with things like missile defense programs, which have long been known to be the devil and which only provocateurs would favor.
If only Obama had had his way previously, as he has been opposed to missile defense for years, and it had never been developed or cancelled much sooner. Then there wouldn’t be countries like Iran and North Korea working to develop nuclear-capable long range missiles.
[quote]borrek wrote:
You guys are blowing this way out of proportion for a chance to dig at Obama. The article itself states that the missle has a 4,000 range, and Hawaii is 4,500 miles away. This is all just posturing, the same way that Venezuela’s naval maneuvers were posturing, or inviting Russian long range bombers was posturing.
Unfortunately we are too tightly bound by the U.N. and if we did destroy the missile launch site, we would be seen as the aggressors because the missile poses no real threat. It would be a different matter if the missile had a 5,000 mile range, but it doesn’t, so for now we cannot justifiably do anything.
If the military brass actually thought that NK was a threat, do you think they would hesitate in making a case? We’ve already seen that a war can be sold against a soft target, yet somehow this supposed major threat is being ignored by the pentagon?[/quote]
The range of the missile is based on estimates and what the North Koreans have claimed publicly. It’s actual range could be much longer or shorter.
Most people wouldn’t allow another man to shoot at them from a distance, even if the man doing the shooting said the bullet wouldn’t reach you. Suffice to say the actual act of someone threatening to shoot at you and holding a rifle, with ammunition ,in his hand would be cause enough for me to take action. I certainly wouldn’t stand there confident in the good will and honesty of a man threatening me with a rifle that he really doesn’t want to hurt me.
I Hope you are right, I think if MK got mad at America , SK would pay the price
pittbull, you just revealed how little you know about our probable actions during any conflict with N.Korea and the extreme capabilities of our S.Korean allies.
[/quote]
You are right , I am no expert,You will have to excuse me; I did not know that being an expert was criteria for making posts. Now I know that every post on this board has been verified by you. Thanks for your help
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:
I bet the obama administration has a strongly worded letter just waiting to go to the UN. Just you wait you N.koreans! We’ll call you names if you launch a missile…
Ask those dead pirates about Obama’s strongly worded letters.
If shit hits the fan, he will not stand in the way of the correct action. [/quote]
Well, we’ll see…So far with North Korea, he has just rolled over and pee’d on himself…Same with Iran. Maybe if the threat gets closer he won’t act like a total pussy, at least I hope not.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The range of the missile is based on estimates and what the North Koreans have claimed publicly. It’s actual range could be much longer or shorter.
Most people wouldn’t allow another man to shoot at them from a distance, even if the man doing the shooting said the bullet wouldn’t reach you. Suffice to say the actual act of someone threatening to shoot at you and holding a rifle, with ammunition ,in his hand would be cause enough for me to take action. I certainly wouldn’t stand there confident in the good will and honesty of a man threatening me with a rifle that he really doesn’t want to hurt me.[/quote]
Let’s be clear about a few things though, because the feeling in this thread is that NK is perpetuating an act of war. This is not an attack on America. Many nations that are hostile to us have the ability to hurt us yet we do nothing about it. This test does not require preemptive action, and I think we’re handling it in the right way by saying that if it does come towards Hawaii, we are more then prepared to deal with that. If we make a big show about the importance of this test, then we guarantee more “tests” to get more of a reaction from us. NK is dying for us to validate their threat.
I think your metaphor would be a little more fleshed out if the man with a rifle was actually a mentally handicapped 12 year old with a bb-gun. Do we go punch him in the face now with impunity, before he can pump it enough to break our window, thereby guaranteeing that when he upgrades to a real rifle, we are the target?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Kim Jong Il will now of course realize that America isn’t the threat he had feared, now that we are weakening our defense against any missiles he might in the future launch that actually are developed enough to work, and obviously will dismantle his program. It was all America’s fault for being too threatening with things like missile defense programs, which have long been known to be the devil and which only provocateurs would favor.
If only Obama had had his way previously, as he has been opposed to missile defense for years, and it had never been developed or cancelled much sooner. Then there wouldn’t be countries like Iran and North Korea working to develop nuclear-capable long range missiles.[/quote]
This is simply untrue.
You people forget the one main goal of people like Kim Jong Il- STAY IN POWER. They get off on doing the shit they do, and if their country is a parking lot, they don’t get to be in power anymore.
This is the same argument I used when talking about Saddam Hussein- he won’t be a serious threat because he likes living the high life. And neither Saddam or Kim Jong are religious nuts who are willing to martyr themselves. They are narcisstic dictators, and narcissistic dictators don’t want to die.
You show a lack of understanding about these kinds of people that run these countries.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Therizza wrote:
your welcome, dick.
How would South Korea, handle North Korea lobbing a nuke missile t them?
[/quote]
Well, if they had operational nuclear weapons, and they launched them at our allies the South Koreans, our subs in the Pacific would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Even if their opening shot was to launch a nuclear weapon at S.Korea, we would stand a good chance of intercepting it with the still active Patriot missile systems Clinton had deployed in 1994. If that wasn’t the case and our carriers could launch sorties before a launch, we would gain air superiority quickly and possibly destroy their nuclear missile launch/manufacturing capabilities. But they wouldn’t use their presumably single nuke in a suicidal move. More likely they will just continue to extort the US and the UN for money and food.
This is the same argument I used when talking about Saddam Hussein- he won’t be a serious threat because he likes living the high life. And neither Saddam or Kim Jong are religious nuts who are willing to martyr themselves. They are narcisstic dictators, and narcissistic dictators don’t want to die.
You show a lack of understanding about these kinds of people that run these countries.
[quote]borrek wrote:
hedo wrote:
The range of the missile is based on estimates and what the North Koreans have claimed publicly. It’s actual range could be much longer or shorter.
Most people wouldn’t allow another man to shoot at them from a distance, even if the man doing the shooting said the bullet wouldn’t reach you. Suffice to say the actual act of someone threatening to shoot at you and holding a rifle, with ammunition ,in his hand would be cause enough for me to take action. I certainly wouldn’t stand there confident in the good will and honesty of a man threatening me with a rifle that he really doesn’t want to hurt me.
Let’s be clear about a few things though, because the feeling in this thread is that NK is perpetuating an act of war. This is not an attack on America. Many nations that are hostile to us have the ability to hurt us yet we do nothing about it. This test does not require preemptive action, and I think we’re handling it in the right way by saying that if it does come towards Hawaii, we are more then prepared to deal with that. If we make a big show about the importance of this test, then we guarantee more “tests” to get more of a reaction from us. NK is dying for us to validate their threat.
I think your metaphor would be a little more fleshed out if the man with a rifle was actually a mentally handicapped 12 year old with a bb-gun. Do we go punch him in the face now with impunity, before he can pump it enough to break our window, thereby guaranteeing that when he upgrades to a real rifle, we are the target?
[/quote]
Depends. I would take the BB gun off him and break it on the ground if he was trying to shoot me with it. His parents shouldn’t have let him have it without supervision (China in this case). Others may want to stand there and see if he’ll actually shoot. He may be handicapped and it might be a BB gun but I feel no obligation to get shot by it because of his handicap and my expectation is that smashing it on the ground may deter him from doing it again.
I agree that launching a missile into the Pacific, taken by itself, might not be considered an act of war. The Pacific is a big place. Shooting it into a remote point is fine. Shooting it towards a US state is a provocation and possibly a practice shot.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
noones gonna fire anything, you can shoot missiles down no problem. and the success rate of a protracted engagement against us is 0%. thats why they won’t start shit. now, if they were to shoot it, and somehow Hawaii takes it, fuck em all. i say murder every last one of those bastards. the ones who are holding guns at least.
but the funny thing is you all get scared about another deployment of US forces in another “war”. lol this conflict would end as quickly as it started. the S.Koreans wouldn’t even need U.S. boots on ground, and we would just sit back and launch sortie after sortie, tomahawk after tomahawk, like Gulf War 1. they would probably capitulate after running out of what little fuel and ammunition they still have. it would be like fighting a retard
[/quote]
Ya we’ll just get in there, kick some ass, then leave. Just like Iraq and vietnam.
The destroyer is actually carrying Obama’s teleprompter and when it intercepts the North Korean warship, Obama will climb aboard and give a speech that will make Kim Jong Il cry and rethink his entire life. Then Obama will be crowned “supreme leader and ruler of the universe”.
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
While this thread is obvious HH stirring the pot, I do have a question for the group:
If NK fires a nuke at us (which I don’t think would actually happen), how do we respond? Personally I think we pretty much have to send at least a few nukes their way to show that we are not to be fucked with, even though I’m sure this would lead to international condemnation for going too far. At the same time I think it would be well worth it, even if we could dismantle the regime w/o nuclear weapons at that point.[/quote]
Honestly?
I think you would turn the capital into a parking lot and take out each and every military installation.
Then you would take their wife, children and cattle and plow salt into their fields.
Noone can launch a nuke at the US and get away with it.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Damn that Obama, he got us in this scrape in Iraq and that scrape in Afghanistan, now we are spread too thin to get North Korea. And that Kim bastard knows it. Damn Obama
This worries me too. If something happens with NK, we will be involved in three engagements at once. Considering how burden we are with paying for two wars, I wonder how a third would effect us.
[/quote]
The US has vast reserves of military capacity. A couple of years ago the chairman of the joint chiefs addressed this issue. What he said back then was that only about twenty percent of Americas military capacity was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan so America still had eighty percent available to deal with places like Korea. The only limitation is we might not have as much smart weaponry available. So instead of stealth bombers using smart bombs we would use B52’s with dumb bombs.
The USAF and US navy would provide complete air superiority. Because of Afghanistan and Iraq the majority of the American army soldiers are combat veterans.
The South Korean military should not be discounted either. They have 700,000 men with modern equipment. South Korea even produces it’s own tank which is based upon the M1 Abrams but smaller so it can navigate the Korean terrain better. The South Korean government has also stated that if the North restarts the war they will take the opportunity to reunify the Korean penninsula.
If it wasn’t for the massive loss of life and the destruction of Seoul I would say we should just get it over with before this situation gets any worse.
If it wasn’t for the massive loss of life and the destruction of Seoul I would say we should just get it over with before this situation gets any worse. [/quote]
You should of said, “they should just get it over with.” S.Korea is no longer of strategic importance in the region, they don’t really want us there and actually is a drain with $5 billion a year paid to the S.Korean gov’t and upwards of 30,000 servicemembers tied up on various bases and the DMZ. Close the bases in Korea, not the US. Move the troops back, reinvest that $5 billion in newer military facilities. For the record, N.Korea has said it won’t consider talks of merging until the US is out of there.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
If it wasn’t for the massive loss of life and the destruction of Seoul I would say we should just get it over with before this situation gets any worse. [/quote]
I feel the same. I just don’t think that this missile test is quite what people are making it out to be. There is no question that NK is unstable and KJI is batshit crazy, but I hate that people want to tie this to weakness by Obama or as a result of him changing course on missile defense. North Korea has been doing this shit for a long time, and will continue to do it for a long time. Eventually they will go too far, and they will be reigned in. I’m certain of that.
With Kim-Jong Il being in poor health, and already naming his successor, the future is uncertain and not necessarily rosy. I don’t think they are capable of a direct attack, but they are a possible proliferation threat.
When they finally do go too far, I’m sure that forensic accountants are going to have a field day with the reams of records we pull out of there.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Sifu wrote:
If it wasn’t for the massive loss of life and the destruction of Seoul I would say we should just get it over with before this situation gets any worse.
I feel the same. I just don’t think that this missile test is quite what people are making it out to be. There is no question that NK is unstable and KJI is batshit crazy, but I hate that people want to tie this to weakness by Obama or as a result of him changing course on missile defense. North Korea has been doing this shit for a long time, and will continue to do it for a long time. Eventually they will go too far, and they will be reigned in. I’m certain of that.
With Kim-Jong Il being in poor health, and already naming his successor, the future is uncertain and not necessarily rosy. I don’t think they are capable of a direct attack, but they are a possible proliferation threat.
When they finally do go too far, I’m sure that forensic accountants are going to have a field day with the reams of records we pull out of there.
[/quote]
Would it be fair to say that the last several months have shown a dramatic upsurge in north korean provocations?
If yes, then what would an obama voter attribute that to?