Comments on: How M.A.D. is Kim Jong Il?

By: Nico

Nico — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:15:59 +0000

I’m no political or military expert, but shouldn’t the US should persuade Japan to alter its constitution and allow an offense-capable military? The US needs a capable, powerful military ally in the region to counteract an irrational Nork gov’t, especially with overstretched military resources. I don’t think a military draft would sound all that appealing to the American public, no matter how euphamistically the media tries to present it.
Pres. Obama increase defense spending to anticipate a military blowup in the Korean Penninsula and allow for the sustainment of 3 MCOs overseas. Sure, it isn’t cheap or appealing in the midst of a recession, but it could prevent an unnecessarily elongated and bloody war.

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:40:44 +0000

During the Cold War some prominent U.S. American strategists argued publicly that the U.S.A. shouldn't imperil their existence over the defense of their European allies (despite big-mouthed pledges of "nuclear umbrellas" and "mutual assistance", etc. etc.), suggesting instead that the U.S.A. should "first try to sort matters out" with the Soviet Union on a "lower, local, tactical level" before going full broadside, meaning: Turning Europe and Russia into a fluorescent wasteland while at the same time preserving the American continent wonderfully intact. But now an increasing number of posters here in this discussion forum enthusiastically supports the idea of nuking North Korea (and getting nuked in return) "pre-emptively" or for as little as a stray missile falling into a Hawaiian volcano. Not being able to find one or two U.S. American cities one hour later (their own cities?) and / or the prospect of North Korea globalizing nuclear terrorism for decades, until their last unspent nukes run out of shelf life, doesn't disconcert them considerably (a severe form of "what shall not happen, cannot happen"?). Either the U.S.A. build big nukes only to aim them at small, weak enemies (cowards, pyromaniacs) or the value of Human lives in the U.S.A. has sunk appreciably (nihilists, suicidals) .

By: drago

drago — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:40:32 +0000

The only way to know for sure is to bomb him and see what happens.
If you only have a few nukes, and your targets are Japan, USA and South Korea, which would you choose? The only country in that list that has ever committed the worst atrocities on the Koreans is Japan.
Patriotic, unapologetic Japs everywhere have every reason to be afraid, very afraid >:)

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:51:06 +0000

To the poster “DBK”:
You wrote: “Perhaps the Korean War will resume to be finally resolved. But it will be very bloody. I would expect much help from the Brits or Canadians orGermans, much less the Japanese (despite their evident fear).“
I would evidently be afraid too if I had to attack a neighbouring, irrational nuclear power with CONVENTIONAL means only, especially one who still harbours rancors against me because of my monstruous World War Two atrocities! And the Japanese also know what it feels like to get nuked. But if the U.S.A. still preferred (or needed…) to fight a nuclear North Korea backed by the Japanese Armed Forces, wouldn’t that be a good opportunity now to finally let them buy those F-22’s, dumbed-down or not? Or should the Japanese surprise the North Koreans on horses, so that you U.S. Americans will always feel safe enough that they will never be able to challenge you again militarily? Come on, admit it, that’s the only true reason behind your refusal: You’re most afraid of the reconstruction of the Japanese Military, because you know exactly that what goes around comes around!

By: flying fart proudly joned

flying fart proudly joned — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:03:09 +0000

FlyingFart: Back-channel diplomacy means things that are done entirely in secret, allowing both parties to save face and negotiate frankly in ways not possible otherwise. The attempts by the Clinton Administration to reign in DPRK nuclear development were not back channel, they were regular meetings with press awareness and with many aides on both sides present.—
I know what Back-channel diplomacy does mean. Those regular meetings were the product of the long and hard back-ddor diplomacy.
—-An example of back channel diplomacy is Henry Kissinger’s secret first trip to China.—-
no, that was selling american and forigners lifes for own political career.
—Also, for clarity I am interested in understanding Kim II better in order to consider how best to resolve the conflict that DPRK keeps provoking and stoking. Sanctions don’t work well at all. Military chest-thumping can just paint everyone into a corner.—
Seriously. Kim II is going to install his son into own position, he is going to have nuclear weapons and he is going to make own political victory. officialy and inofficialy Kim II is over and out with a great smile on his face. You are to late to understand him. Neither can you understand him because you have no personal information (not speculations) about him, wich was not controlled by his will. you lost, he is victoruos and going to left the battle-place already.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:37:20 +0000

North Korea is China’s lapdog & bitch. I say that because North Korea,by threatening South Korea,Japan,& the U.S.,IS doing China’s will.
I cannot help but roll my eyes in total disgust with all of these people who describe China as our friend. China is going to march into North Korea & disarm them & drive Kim Jong Il from power? You tell me who is being delusional & either smoking pot or some other psychotropic drug?
China does not view the U.S. as their most important trading partner,let’s get that STRONG DELUSION out of the way right now.
China does however view our land,our territory as their “Lebensraum(like Nazi Germany viewed Poland,Russia(USSR),& the rest of the nations east of them.
Why do you think that china has been poisoning our food & medicine that they have been selling us. Remember all of the “made in China” products being recalled for safety reasons? remember our pets being poisoned? Remember all the lead paint in our children’s toys? My brother died in 2007 after being put on a heparin drip(he developed a brain hemorrhage). Now we hear about Heparin produced in China being unsafe & the cause of many patient deaths in the U.S.
Where am I going with this? China is doing with us what we did with the American Indians when we took away their land. Just like we gave Indians smallpox infested blankets to kill them off & take their land,China is doing her best to poison us & kill us will faulty products.“But they need our money!!!!!” You dumbass,they don’t want our money,they want us GONE(dead,extinct) so they can take our land,cities,& houses.
Please,somebody say again how China is our best buddy(“where would Wal-Mart be without China?”) & will help us with North Korea so that I can mock,ridicule,& laugh you to scorn.

By: Subby

Subby — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:31:39 +0000

Firstly, noone cares about North Koreans. The whole purpose of the discussion is that North Korea will soon have a nuclear arsenal and we can’t let that happen. Some people think they can be bargained with through backchannels others think we should invade. Both are unrealistic, we have absolutely no leverage or spies or sabotage capability in North Korea, so the bargaining option will only buy time and maybe not even that. Invasion is too costly in the one thing we can’t build more of, and thats soldiers lives.
The best we can do is probably seize the capital and install a phony government by bribing some north koreans, this will lure out the vanguard, who will then be bargained with opening up their regime to spies, in this way they can be controlled to some degree. But even this will be a significant military procedure and do we even have the intelligence required to pull it off. I don’t believe so. Like I said we are screwed, someones gonna get nuked either way.

By: Joseph Steinberg

Joseph Steinberg — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:03:21 +0000

Why wouldn’t China offer to buy out any nukes that Kim II might move close to selling, perhaps at a price of two or ten times the going rate for the ilk of al Qaeda?
Because the extortion would never cease! And then, Beijing would have fewer T-bills and Pyongyang would have even more leverage over Washington.

By: joe buff

joe buff — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:31:34 +0000

By: flying fart proudly joned

flying fart proudly joned — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:10:55 +0000

Also that whole israel has had nukes for years but hasent threatened to wipe jordan, syria, iran egypt etc.———–
WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. someone needs here to take the history lessons. i bet it is you.