North Korean Military.

John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The only more effective lobby organization than the NRA is the pro-Israel lobby. The latter's success was made easier by two unprovoked wars by Arab states which turned American public opinion against the Arabs more the most part. Islamic terrorism ensures the continued negative opinion. Public statements about destroying Israel gives the Israelis a lot of wiggle room for some of their dumb moves over the years.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
The U.S. policy of unconditional support to Israel has its roots in the Cold War - after the 6 Day War - when Israel was seen as a reliable partner in a strategic region in which various countries were Soviet ''friendly''. There are various reasons that led to such a strong level of U.S. support for Israel, including public support but I doubt that there were any ''unprovoked'' wars launched by the Arabs that really formed U.S. opinion in the side of Israel; certainly not the 6 Day War in which even some Israelis maintain was a war Israel actually wanted to weaken the Arabs and to gain strategic territory.

Unfortunately for Nasser; his rhetoric and actions in 1967 such as asking the UN to leave and closing the Straits of Tiran helped Israel with its narrative of larger and more powerful Arab states that were mobilising to annihilate a smaller and less powerful Israel and gave it a pretext to strike first.
 
2007yellow430

2007yellow430

Active Member
John Fedup said:
The only more effective lobby organization than the NRA is the pro-Israel lobby. The latter's success was made easier by two unprovoked wars by Arab states which turned American public opinion against the Arabs more the most part. Islamic terrorism ensures the continued negative opinion. Public statements about destroying Israel gives the Israelis a lot of wiggle room for some of their dumb moves over the years.
Click to expand...
Arabs started the 46 war and the 73 war. The rest, including the 56, 67, and 82 wars, had the Israelis firing the first shots. Most folks believe the Arabs fired first in those wars.
Art
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
It was the 1948 war. The Arabs went to war in the 1973 October/Yom Kippur War to regain territories lost to Israel in 1973. For the 1982 Lebanon invasion Israel declared it was intended to drive out the PLO but what it didn't say was that it also wanted to install a friendly Lebanese government led by the far right Christian Phalange. Things at first went well and Israel had its man in power in Beirut, until Assad Sr. decided to strike back and Bashir Gemayal was killed in a bomb blast. Here I am again getting off topic.
 
T

Toblerone

Banned Member
Geopolitically the relationship between US and Israel doesn't make much sense and hasn't for decades. But when you take into account that US government and Pentagon policy makers put their careers first, then it all becomes clearer. The quickest way to buoy oneself to the top is with the support of the pro-Israel lobby.

Personal ambition trumps national interests considerations any day of the week. Not to mention expenditures on the back of the taxpayer.

But about North Korea, is there any new development? I have seen Trump tweeting that China is not doing anything to pressure them.
 
C

colay1

Member
The US assessment is that NK now has the ability to build a miniaturized nuke warhead for it's ICBM. NK has threatened turning SK into a 'sea of fire' and Trump is promising 'fire and fury' and the Japanese are practicing evacuation drills in their cities. Neither side seems willing to back off the rhetoric and the displays of force and the fear is some minor incident could quickly escalate. Trump has boasted that his unpredictability is an asset which is the last thing countries in the region can take comfort in.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/08/trump-administration-north-korea-diplomacy-talks
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The policy of doing nothing because there are no good options has finally come back to bite the US and the local neighbours in the a$$. Five to ten years ago a first strike could have ended the NK regime and likely this would have caused a $hitstorm. I guess the question is would this $hitstorm be worse than the nuclear blackmail that will be just around the corner now. A nuclear Japan and probably SK is just around the corner now. Looking forward to the Chinese whining as these two neighbours start their programs...what goes around comes around.
 
C

colay1

Member
IMO the longstanding US insistence that NK abandon it's nuke program as a precondition to talks has proven to be counterproductive. The sanctions strategy intended to weaken NK to get them to agree to this precondition is not working. The USG should accept this reality and agree to non-conditional talks.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
What's to talk about? NK has a bomb that fits on their ICBM (assuming intelligence estimates are correct). They aren't going to give this stuff up so it's time for the neighbours to get nukes as well.
 
I

InterestedParty

Active Member
I dont understand the focus on delivery by missile.
Its like an episode of Hogans Heroes and we are all looking at the distraction and not where we should be looking
If NK has a small warhead they can put in in a crate and send it by air or sea surely, or is the blockade that watertight
 
C

colay1

Member
I disagree. When you discount talks then you basically wind up with a
self-fulfilling prophecy or worse. Nukes are a means to an end for NK ie. assuring the continued existence of the regime. Talks could provide the same assurance, presumably backed with a Chinese guarantee, that could lead to a deescalation. I doubt the citizens of Japan andd SK have any stomach for nukes. Not in China's interests either.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
colay1 said:
I disagree. When you discount talks then you basically wind up with a
self-fulfilling prophecy or worse. Nukes are a means to an end for NK ie. assuring the continued existence of the regime. Talks could provide the same assurance, presumably backed with a Chinese guarantee, that could lead to a deescalation. I doubt the citizens of Japan andd SK have any stomach for nukes. Not in China's interests either.
Click to expand...
The problem is NK doesn't see anything from anyone elses POV (not even China's).

Look at Guam, now it is directly earmarked for a strike (and its believable NK might do that and has the capability) people are very unhappy there. US policy is still very unclear. People in Japan can see the re-entry of NK missiles into the atmosphere.

If NK was to perform a missile test with a live atmospheric nuclear weapon over the ocean now, this is going to get out of hand very quickly.
 
C

colay1

Member
Negotiations will necessarily accommodate viewpoints of all parties if an agreement is to be reached. Often after arduous, lengthy discussions but that's often the nature of diplomacy. If there is doubt or uncertainty about NK world view/intentions/positions/etc. then these will surface during talks.

As far as Trump's "fire and fury" comment, CNN reports are all he's done is alarm South Koreans who are used to NK threats. With the threat to Guam the ball is in Trump's court now.
 
S

supercomrade

Member
How on earth does NK plan to do a strike on Guam?

They have no planes that can go that far and I doubt a naval strike is even an option considering how many US ships are in the region.

They're that confident in their missiles now?
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If intelligence reports are accurate then a strike on Guam would be by missile which is a useless mission. Might as well go for a mainland US city because either target will result in a counter strike that will be an extinction event for NK.
 
gazzzwp

gazzzwp

Member
supercomrade said:
How on earth does NK plan to do a strike on Guam?

They have no planes that can go that far and I doubt a naval strike is even an option considering how many US ships are in the region.

They're that confident in their missiles now?
Click to expand...
I've considered the same thing. There must be a huge question over accuracy. Does anyone know exactly what guidance system these NK missiles have? Do they actually have any?
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
InterestedParty said:
I dont understand the focus on delivery by missile.
Its like an episode of Hogans Heroes and we are all looking at the distraction and not where we should be looking
If NK has a small warhead they can put in in a crate and send it by air or sea surely, or is the blockade that watertight
Click to expand...
There is no blockade of N. Korea. No ships patrol off the coast stopping ships.The only time there was a blockade was during the Korean War, so not since 1953.

The USA does not trade with N. Korea. There are no direct flights or ships from N. Korea to the USA or any US territory. Any package would have to go via a third country, on a ship or aircraft from a third country, e.g. China, & have its origin faked en route. Doing that with a nuclear weapon is not a trivial problem. Imagine the consequences for N. Korea of the Chinese realising that N. Korea was trying to perform a nuclear attack on US territory via China, or how the Chinese would react if it succeeded, & they discovered how they'd been used.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
It's certainly a nightmare scenario : the possibility that the Norh Koreans have a briefcase size nuclear device that can be smuggled into other countries.

Given that China is also at risk and wants to avoid a full scale conflict; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Chinese have contigency plans in place for replacing of the current leadership with another that is more China compliant or even for the rapid takeover of North Korea's nukes. I also wonder how good China's HUMINT is in North Korea (certainly better than the U.S's) with regards to developments with the nuclear programme and the location of nukes.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
STURM said:
Given that China is also at risk and wants to avoid a full scale conflict; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Chinese have contigency plans in place for replacing of the current leadership with another that is more China compliant or even for the rapid takeover of North Korea's nukes.
Click to expand...
If China has a contingency plan, it is likely one that isn't much better than the US's otherwise they should have moved on NK long before now. NK nuclear developments are almost as bad for China as the US and Kim has purged all his pro-China associates. China has more or less mirrored the US with a do nothing approach. Everyone in the region would have been comfortable with a Chinese takeover of NK several years ago. It is even doubtful that NK's only other ally, Russia, would complain given Putin's move on Crimea.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
If China has a contingency plan, it is likely one that isn't much better than the US's otherwise they should have moved on NK long before now.
Click to expand...
Why would they have made a premature on move on North Korea when it's not to their advantage? As for their contingency plans; I'm pretty sure they're much better than that of the U.S. The U.S. has no plan except to beat the war drums. The Chinese understand the North Koreans much better than the U.S. ever could and are realists. Given that the Chinese are concerned about a breakup of North Korea and the possibility that North Korea could undertake moves that directly threaten China's interests; I'd be very surprised if they didn't have plans to rapidly move troops into the country or to gain control of North Korea's nukes by a coup de main.

John Fedup said:
China has more or less mirrored the US with a do nothing approach./quote]

Nothing could be further from the truth. China has been doing its way; which differs from the way the Americans go about doing things. It has - time and time again - publicly expressed its displeasure with the North Koreans and taken several measures. What else is China expected to do? If it ceases all trade with North Korea - trade which existed way before the current crisis - will the U.S. compensate China? Easy to say that China isn't doing much when it's North Korea on China's backyard and if millions of North refugees pour into China it won't be U.S. helping with funds or deploying ''boots on the ground'' to deal with [to use another cliche] ''the mother of all '' humanitarian operations.

[North Korea Threatens Missile Attack On US territory Guam - Korean People's Army Statement Comes Just Hours After Trump Said Any Threat To The US Would Meet 'Fire And Fury']
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...le-strike-territory-guam-170808230004855.html

''the Trump administration's responses to the threat posed by North Korea have been inconsistent. We've seen the US secretary of state say that he's willing to negotiate with North Korea. The US ambassador to the United Nations said the time for talk is over. The CIA director hinted that the US was looking for regime change in North Korea," she said. On the campaign trail, [Trump] said that the fact that he is unpredictable was an asset. We're about to find out in a very high stakes test if he's right."

[A Rare Round of Diplomacy From North Korea’s Top Diplomat]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/world/asia/north-korea-asean-tillerson.html

''In what appeared to be a blunt warning to the Trump administration, President Moon Jae-in of South Korea on Monday strongly opposed any military actions against the North that could set off war.''

“If there’s going to be a war to stop it, it will be over there,” Mr. Graham told NBC’s “Today” show. “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there - they’re not going to die here. He’s told me that to my face - and that may be provocative, but not really. When you’re president of the United States, where does your allegiance lie?”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top