@Worf"Just take out their military facilities! Easy solution."Pull out a map of the Korean peninsula. Then take a look at the North
and South Korean border. Then remember that North Korea has one of the largest
armies in the world. Now find the South Korean capital, Seoul. Taking out North
Korean military facilities is not really feasible since they have a lot, one
could really only hope to take out their nuclear facilities and then you'd
have to pray you got the weapons too which can't be guaranteed. An attack
on North Korea can easily endanger the lives of millions of South Koreans (and
tens of thousands of US soldiers) depending on the reaction.So no,
this is not an easy solution.
Are sanctions not considered more than an unfriendly act? Aren't they more
of an interim assault, a precursor to war?
mg scott, we already know. And you are still misrepresenting what President
Obama was calling for. He was not calling for a unilateral US disarmament like
you imply, he was calling for a nuke free world. He was talking about his
support for Global Zero. And he talked about how this is a long term plan. But don't worry, it probably is not going to happen in the
foreseeable future. You will probably never live in a nuclear free world, and
neither will your kids. So be happy, you will always live in a world with the
threat of nukes. Goodness why would we want to change it?
Re: All the skepticsIn 2009 Obama spoke in Prague about a nuclear
free America......... I was wrong when I said Google it. I got it off of Bing.
These are small countries. They can't hurt us---Barack Obama 2012
As someone with a degree in Korean and experience living in (South) Korea for a
number of years, let me say that all this hooie in the US about N. Korea is so
over blown that it is ridiculous. The US worries more about N.Korea than S.
Korea does. This is beside the point, but I feel as well that all this
"Smack Down" that the US government wants to do on N. Korea is
unfortunate. You are picking a fight with a huge balloon. If you just leave it
alone it will slowly deflate. If you keep prodding it, it will pop and we get
hit with the shrapnel. Fix the US economy. Stop worrying about some guy 6000
miles away in a failing nation.
@Blue--do some thinking.We don't need troops going in, and we
don't need to spend on re-building.--That's what liberals do, and
it's costly.A few missiles, and bunker busters will do the
trick. Over, and done.
BlueSalt Lake City, UT"Just take out their military facilities!
Easy solution."- Worf"For every human problem, there
is a neat, simple solution and it is always wrong." - H.L. MenckenThere's very little backbone or grit involved in going to war. War
is easy. Peace is hard. Consevatives these days love talking about
going to war but then neither offer to pay for it nor sign up their kids to go
fight it. ========== Agreed, as a Liberal - who is
also a proud Veteran, and is always willing to ponly up and pay higher
taxes to pay for these stupid "wars" Republicans which they are always
willing to start and never fund....I also know for a fact that worf,
patriot, J Thompson, Mike Richards, mountaman, RedShirt, wrz, L White, and Voice
of Reason to name just a few -- are always the very 1st to want to start yet
another war, have NEVER served in the military, and then complain about our
national deficeit.It's the #1 reason I have zero respect for
their opinions about such matters...
I had hoped that Kim Jong Un would be more open minded and seek to lift his
country out of poverty and away from belligerence.I was wrong.
A false flag strike is more probable.
President Spencer W. Kimball back in 1981 changed minds in Utah about having an
MX missile system deployed in our west desert.I personally was being
misled by politicians and the media at the time to think MX was needed.
After the 1st Presidency statement on the subject, I went from cold war military
build-up enthusiasm to; let's build-up the missionary force for teaching
love one another and sending volunteer Church aid to hungry of world with
it's humanitarian programs. Aid goes directly to the hungry children
suffering under collectivist dictatorships without regard to the countries
erroneous governing philosophies which were causing the starvation in the first
And we worry about Iran? Which is the greater threat to the United States North
Korea or Iran?
@patriot"Reagan EXPLODED military spending along with upgrading our
nuclear arsenal. If you actually spent 5 minutes doing research you would
discover it. The USSR could not keep up with the US build up militarily and
finally threw in the towel. Without Reagan doing what he did the USSR would
never have collapsed when it did"You're saying the USSR
collapsed because we had a bigger pile of guns? No. They had an economic
collapse and fell apart internally. Reagan's weapon supply had absolutely
nothing to do with it. The notion doesn't even make sense. @m.g.scottObama favors a world where nobody has nuclear weapons, not
just getting rid of the U.S. ones and letting everyone else do what they want as
you and patriot suggest.
And they wonder why other nations are allowed nucs, but they are not.not.
@kosimov,"I guess I am safe to say that you have a tendency to
group together anyone who disagrees with you and address them as, say, "you
folks"". I honestly have no problem with those that disagree with
me. There are many valid viewpoints. And there are many valid opinions. The "you folks" I was referring to are those who take a
statement and embellish it to make a point that was never intended. I call out
erroneous statements put forth as fact, not erroneous opinions. I will try to
be more specific in the future.The concept that Obama wants to
reduce our number of nuclear weapons to zero (as was stated) is not supported by
the facts. One could easily make a case against reducing our weapons. Notice how I included Obamas actual statement in my response?Why not disagree with what he actually said, instead of making a hypothetical
argument.What I state as facts on this board, I research. And I
look for reasonable sources. I hope others would do the same.We can
have productive discussions about actual policies, positions and opinions.Lets stick to those and leave the unsupported partisan rhetoric out.
When North Korea vows to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United
States, too many people here assume that they mean "launching" a missile
and hitting the U.S. mainland from North Korea.North Korea's
current missile technology is woefully inadequate to do that. However, that does
not mean they can't accomplish their goal of attacking the United States.
Here are at least two ways they can do it.1. They launch a short
range missile at one of our bases or military installations in South Korea. The
U.S. currently has about 25,000 military personnel in South Korea.Such an attack would likely leave tens of thousands of Americans dead.2. They load a nuclear bomb on to a boat, falsify its flag and markings,
and simply sail it to Hawaii or one of our ports along the West coast. With one
of their short range missiles (60 mile range), they wouldn't even have to
pull into the harbor. They could launch from more than 20 miles off-shore and we
would never be able to stop it from devastating a large American city.Never underestimate your enemy, remember what happened at Pearl Harbor?
Too bad all around. North Korea and every other nation could spend their
resources and money on so many better things. But this is the world we live in
and thus the reason we are wise to maintain a strong military.
Just keep selling arms to Japan and Taiwan. Japan probably has a better iron
dome than Israel.We know they have better electric submarines than anybody in
the world but the Germans. Now if China follows through and actually helps with
the blockade we wont have to worry about North Korea.Obama just has to do
what he does best nothing.Oh, I am sorry I didnt mean to call golf
I can see the weather forecast for North Korea the minute they try it.......very
flat glowing red, very cloudy and about 10,000 degrees.
To: Joe BlowRe: "Why do you folks consistently go
over-the-top."I guess I am safe to say that you have a tendency
to group together anyone who disagrees with you and address them as, say,
"you folks". Or were you replying to someone in particular? I am not
worried about what you think or say; you have the right to think and say what
you wish - as do I. So, following your lead, I would say: "Why do 'YOU
FOLKS' pigeon-hole those who don't march in step with you to the beat
of some drummer somewhere, and make such broad, baseless remarks that they could
apply to almost anyone anywhere?" You seem to do this quite a bit. I am
absolutely sure that this kind of abrasive rhetoric is one big reason why we are
all lashing out at each other instead of trying to understand each other and
work out solutions to problems, rather than creating more and more problems with
each remark. I am truly worried about the U.S. I like Obama as a person but he
is not behind what is happening to us. He is being used by someone....
I must say, I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that North Korea is not heeding the
sanctions placed upon them!!! Simply stunned.
"Just take out their military facilities! Easy solution."- Worf"For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution and it is
always wrong." - H.L. Mencken"We need grit, and
backbone in Washington."There's very little backbone or
grit involved in going to war. War is easy. Peace is hard. Consevatives these days love talking about going to war but then neither offer
to pay for it nor sign up their kids to go fight it. It takes lots
of brains, backbone and
A nuclear-free world is quite different from everyone else having nukes and
reducing ours (the US) to zero. Talk about taking something and putting spin on
it. I would hope that it is everyone's hope to have a nuclear-free world
and a world of peace. Maybe not.
Just take out their military facilities! Easy solution.We need
grit, and backbone in Washington.
cmon MG.Seriously.Can any reasonable person read this""So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's
commitment and desire to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear
weapons."Lets just say, that if in high school, you were told to
paraphrase that sentence and you answered"Barack has vowed to
reduce the US nuclear arsenal to 0"you would get an "F".
The two statements are a complete disconnect.Why the need to
embellish?I tell you what. I would be thrilled to live in a world
without nuclear weapons.And, If I were the president today, I would
tell the world"The US will NEVER, let me repeat, NEVER use our
nuclear weapons offensively. They would only be used in response to a nuclear
attack, or the imminent threat of a nuclear attack."Maybe then,
countries would not feel the need to acquire nuclear.
re:JoeBlowReporting from Washington — President Obama's
ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful
resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a
threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.Obama
laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech
Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead
the way. (LA Times Jan 4 2010).So is this the non-proof you were
referring to Joe? You might want to spend 5 minutes on google BEFORE making the
absurd statement that you made.
re:one old manWell I suspect the Pope did have some influence but if
you recall- go back to the 1980's - you will remember what Reagan actually
did. Reagan took over from sorry little Jimmy Carter who spend 4 years
humiliating the US and Reagan EXPLODED military spending along with upgrading
our nuclear arsenal. If you actually spent 5 minutes doing research you would
discover it. The USSR could not keep up with the US build up militarily and
finally threw in the towel. Without Reagan doing what he did the USSR would
never have collapsed when it did. Yes old man - peace through strength does
actually work. Appeasement and apology didn't seem to work too well with
Iran or North Korean did it.
m.g. scott:Sorry, but something that you read somewhere on some
tinfoil-hatted website sounds like a dubious source to be quoting.@nesby:And when it comes time to invade North Korea, you and your
family will be the first ones to volunteer for military service, right? You
wont just slap a Support The Troops sticker on your car and then complain when
the government wants to raise taxes to pay for that little opus?
Quick PSI googled Obama nuclear free world and found what Patriot
and I are talking about.
Re: Joe Blow and xscribeIn response to the Patriot point of zero
nukes by Obama, I do believe Patriot is correct in that I too remember something
about Obama as having suggested the removal of all nuclear weapons worldwide.
Can't source it at this time, but I think it is something Obama once
said.To others, thanks for the reference on "The Mouse that
Roared".And speaking of "one old man," I will agree
with your assertion that Reagan may be getting more credit than he deserves on
the fall of the Iron Curtin. However that will only play as long as you
liberals will admit that it was the continuation of the Bush policy that led to
Obama getting Usama Bin Laden. OK?
I think a lot of people have no idea just how devastating even a failed nuclear
strike can be to our nation, its people, and the health of the entire world.
It's really nothing our youngsters even talk about anymore...
I, too, tried to find something where Obama states he wants our nuclear arsenal
at 0, but, alas, can't seem to find it. How convenient for Patriot to say
it, but not provide evidence for it. In fact, Obama's only statement was
to reduce them further than the 1500 point that had been agreed upon earlier.
Wonder how many of those little bombs it would take to dessimate the world?
Nice try, though, Patriot, but it's hard to take one seriously with
anything they say when they could have just as easily made their point with the
truth instead of making things up!
Patriot, if you will do some reading of history -- real history, not the Glen
Beck type -- you will learn that although Reagan deserves a bit of credit for
closing down the old Soviet Union, the REAL credit goes to a Polish Pope and a
bunch of very courageous union workers in Poland and elsewhere on the east side
of the Iron Curtain.That hogwash about giving Reagan full credit for
the end of the Soviets is awfully old. It exposes only the lack of truthful
information possessed by those who spout it.
m. g. scott: "The Mouse that Roared" (1959), in which The Grand Duchy of
Fenwick declared war on the U.S. Great Movie!
@Patriot "Never fear folks - Barack has vowed to reduce the US
nuclear arsenal to 0."Oh Really? I missed that quote. Care to
point us to that gem?Why do you folks consistently go
over-the-top.If you are concerned about a president reducing our
nuclear capabilities, that is a valid concern to some.Discuss it
rationally and honestly. Why resort to totally false statements to prove a
point?Is the truth just not provocative enough so you need to take
it to a dishonest level?
Nebsy: What would YOU like him to do?Looks like we may own NK soon!
"North Korea just threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on your
children.....what will your President do?"I dont know Nebsy.
What do you suggest?I hope it is a calm, well reasoned response.
It's all biblical people. A darker day is coming. Where are your feet
plantred? Listen to this and pray about it."but unto them that
fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings,
and they shall grow up before me as calves in a stall." Malachi 4: 1-2 Stay out of the fray.
re:one old manDoes the phrase "peace through strength" mean
anything at all to you? President Reagan said it and it was THE reason we WON
the cold war with the old USSR. As I recall - your socialist president Obama was
going to sit down with little ole North Korea back in 2009 and convince them to
be our friends. Didn't work out too well did it...but liberal policy never
does. As far as isolation being tied to the Tea Party....I have no idea what
your point is. If you knew ANYTHING about what the Tea Party actually stood for
you would find yourself in agreement ...but doing actual research is hard work
for a liberal ... I understand. By the way, MSNBC doesn't count as
"When people or countries isolate themselves, they pretty soon lose touch
and start to be afraid of everyone."Do you mean like
conservative Tea Party Republicans?
Never fear folks - Barack has vowed to reduce the US nuclear arsenal to 0. The
idea here is if we just get rid of our nuclear weapons then so will North Korea
and I'm sure that will be the case. Liberals are so smart... it warms the
heart to know we are in safe hands.
m.g. scott -- have you ever read The Mouse That Roared by Leonard Wibberly?
Great book. Exactly what you're talking about.
@nebsynot react like children in a school yard.
Another POV: When people or countries isolate themselves, they pretty soon lose
touch and start to be afraid of everyone. It's human nature. The best
antidote is not more isolation but to find ways to engage them again. If Kim
likes basketball, send the Globetrotters in. Propose Michael Jordan as first
ambassador to the PRK. You guys all know how this works with these
kinds of neighbors. We talk about it in Conference and Sunday School. Why is it
in the real world that we would rather nuke them first? Do we want to solve the
problem or just have revenge (for something that hasn't happened yet)?
Another paper tiger.Raise the rhetoric.Increase in
Military spending.Cold Wars are expensive.
It is no big deal if North Korea wants to nuke us. Iran wants to also, and they
want to nuke Israel too. No one in office worries about them. I am sure our
defense secretary will be able to contain them both. He said he will.We also have the secret weapons of the United Nations (which has done such a
good job with Iran's threats) and Dennis Rodman. We should send Rodman back
to North Korea long term, until he makes the North Koreans love us like he loves
Kim jong un, or ... whatever happens happens.Maybe we should let
them be the host of the United Nations. That should make them nicer.No need to keep a strong military though, and we should dismantle all our
nukes. They are too expensive to maintain and set a bad example. We can balance
our budget on military cuts, and send any money we have to spare to the North
Koreans for humanitarian aid.Kittens and roses all around.
If I threatened to send a missle at the white house I would go to jail. Does
Ohama have the guts to send N Korea to jail?
These countries are small! They're no threat to us----Barrack ObamaWhen a country has the ability, and threatens nukes, it's time to
take out facilities.
Nebsy: "North Korea just threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on your
children.....what will your President do?"Probably think
rationally, stay calm, look at the evidence, understand the political, military
and economic forces at work, and have the State Department communicate with the
Chinese about them getting a better grip on Kim Jong Un. Also, some careful
communications with South Korea about their position and how we can help each
other. Probably also have DoD, CIA and NSA ratchet up their intel and planning
in the event that North Korea makes moves that look like they might try to do
something stupid.And as opposed to... what? A knee-jerk,
emotion-driven escalation of childish sabre-rattling until someone actually
_does_ do something stupid and a lot of innocent people die and the world
re-enters the Stone Age?
Maybe North Korea is trying to get into a war so that when it is over and the
U.S. has won, we will rebuild their country. Kind of a Marshall Plan for Korea.
Wasn't there some movie about some small country trying just that? Kim
Jong Un might be watching too many Hollywood movies.
This guy makes Saddam look like a ally. Why did we go to the Sunni-shite fight
and not here? If war is declared everyone should pay cost in increased taxes to
balance budget (unlike iraq fiasco).
@NebsyEphraim, UT"North Korea just threatened to drop a
nuclear bomb on your children.....what will your President do?"If we reacted every time the North Koreans made a threat, we would have been
in a state of active war with them since 1953. In this case, it's an empty
threat since they lack the means to deliver any sort of attack against us,
"Red Dawn" notwithstanding. And they didn't threaten to attack our
"children". They threatened to attack all of us. Making a more
emotional appeal by the use of "children" doesn't make a military
response any more necessary than by looking at the facts. If a homeless old guy
on the street announced that he was ready to bring the US to its knees, would
you feel the need to shoot him, or would you just walk away shaking your head?
In any case, Obama will do the same thing that Romney would have
done had he been elected. He'll continue to maintain our military presence
in Korea and support continued sanctions against the north.
Do the soldiers in the photo have light sabers? Cool..
I think that they would have a better chance if they threw the Hold Hand Grenade
of Antioch. Sorry, when Eliyahu made his Monty Python reference, I just
couldn't resist.So Mountanman, what is your point?
North Korea just threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on your children.....what
will your President do?
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor for the exact same reason (economic sanctions) and
then we nuked Japan after FDR put Japanese Americans in interment camps!
North Korea reminds me of the black knight in "Monty Python and the Holy
Grail" who, after having both his arms and legs lopped off in a sword fight,
continues with the bluster and threats against his opponent. North Korea's
military is mostly equipped with outdated aircraft and can't even afford to
fly them regularly for training or to properly maintain them. Use Google Earth
to look at the many military airfields in NK. You'll see a lack of black
tire marks at either end of them, something normally present when landing strips
receive even moderate use, along with outdated aircraft parked in rows near the
airstrips. The only thing they could mount with any effect is an artillery
barrage, and there are questions about how long they could sustain such an
effort. The reality is that they would fall as fast as Iraq did.
China needs to put their thumb down. Everyone knows China allows North Korea to
Unfortunately, if they launched a nuclear warhead on a missile and we
intercepted it, this could have a tragic outcome.If the warhead were to
detonate several miles in the atmosphere the radiation fallout could spread for
thousands of miles as the winds carried it across oceans or continents.Part of this problem could be due to the fact that after WWII we refused to go
to war. Instead we engaged in a series of policing actions that left the issues
unresolved and festering.Maybe Patton was right when he said we needed to
continue through Asia and loop back around to Africa at the end of the war.
How about letting Dennis Rodman arrange a visit for Kim Jong Un to come watch
some basketball. As nutty as that may sound, wouldn't it be worth a try.
Who knows, we might be missing an opportunity to turn the kid into an ally.
FatherOfFourThanks. That makes way more sense. I appreciate it.
Send Dennis Rodman back!
"North Korea vows to nuke US." Good luck with that Skippy. Let me know
how that works out for ya. I'll be sitting here with my coffee.@TOO - North Korea is not completely self-sufficient. It depends on trade with
other countries to obtain food, gasoline (of which the US is the top exporter in
the world), oil, medicine, and other such necessities for its people. Imposing
sanctions means that those trade deals are either severely limited or completely
cut off. Your hospitals run out of pharmaceuticals. Your stores run out of food.
Your power grid begins to decay.
Lots of big talk on both sides. North Korea won't follow through, due to a
lack of capability, not a lack of desire. Will the UN follow through?
Could someone educate me? What exactly does it mean sanctions? Mitt
Romney and Barack Obama always talk about sanctions, but what does it mean to
put sanctions on someone? I haven't really understood that.