North Korea fire Two Missiles

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:24 am

@ Fiona: Sovereign nation or not, lobbing missiles near (or over) your neighbours is generally frowned upon.

These tests where already in the making for some time.

As for North Korea's motives:

[QUOTE=The Economist]Divining North Korean motives gets no easier. The six-party talks (involving America, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia) aimed at getting North Korea to give up its nuclear-arms programmes in return for aid, trade and security guarantees have been stalled since last November. North Korea has long wanted to treat with America bilaterally, a notion turned down again this month. The Bush administration says it will not even start to negotiate on other matters until North Korea abandons its programmes for reprocessing plutonium and enriching uranium. Meanwhile, financial sanctions by America over dollar counterfeiting and money-laundering is squeezing a regime that has relied on such activities.

So the posturing—if it does not represent the outward effects of hidden tensions within the regime, which are always possible—looks most like an attempt to grab America's attention and strengthen North Korea's hand. Though the North has succeeded in the first aim, missile theatricals will not help with the second. Until now, it has been possible for North Korea's two chief economic benefactors, China and South Korea, to intimate that American intransigence is chiefly to blame for the six-party talks being stalled. A missile launch would make that case untenable.

Yet the range of options for America and its allies looks limited. Military force is out of the question because of the danger to the South. The United States' new missile-defence system is, to put it charitably, unproven. Few extra sanctions are available to apply pressure on a state that is already so economically isolated.

So the greatest pressure will fall on those countries most engaged with the regime. China (North Korea's only official ally), even though unthreatened by its neighbour's missiles, has expressed worries too. It is urging North Korea and America to get talking about the missiles one-to-one—a sure sign of anxiety. And it will not want to carry even more of the cost of keeping Mr Kim's awful country going. A pain, then, for everyone.
[/QUOTE]

Ashen · Post by **Ashen** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:31 am

[QUOTE=ch85us2001]
@ Ashen: It'll probably be a few airstrikes and SF teams, if anything, hopefully. If not, we'll get stuck there for another fifteen years, more than likely.

[/QUOTE]

Well even that is actually an issue. If we were only talking about outgunning so to speak their airforce as in planes then indeed I would see airstrikes as a possibility, though I would have to go look/ask what is known of their airdefences. We have already seen actually that a semi-capable force can in a way challenge the NATO in the sense of acceptable losses - just how much would be accaptable if the US/NATO planes start going down? Also, we are talking about someone who is capable of launching missles, and it doesn't have to be against the US, remember, but some other NATO country. Let's not even mention that it can easily destroy the 8(?) US bases in S.Korea. Militarily speaking they are no small potatoe - it's the 4th largest in the world I believe, around a million men in it.

I admit to being more knowledgable when it comes to the airforce - I am an aeronautical and aerospace engineer - but I know quite a few military people due to it all. Their concensus is that NK is simply too big of a threat to go into a war and let's not even get into the whole a-bomb problem.

ch85us2001 · Post by **ch85us2001** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:34 am

@ Dowaco: They'll get there butts handed to them if they continue, but at what cost?

And I'm an all out American Patriot Bush supporter. Theres an American Flag on my front proch right now.

@ Ashen: Yeah, but are a few planes worth fighting in the jungles for twenty years? I seriously believe the US and UN airforces are far superior to any other force in the air. Why give them the advantage of fighting in there own country, where they know the land?

I wonder if they have SAMs?

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:37 am

Plus the fact that Seoul (Metropolitan Area: 23 mio according to wiki) lies very close to the border and would be an obvious target.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:37 am

From Wiki

George Bush wrote: " [Our goal] is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."
In 1994, the United States and North Korea had entered into the "Agreed Framework" to defuse the issue of the North Korean nuclear program. Neither party held to this agreement during the Clinton Administration, and most experts believe North Korea had acquired one or two nuclear weapons before Bush took office. The year after Bush's speech, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Later in 2003, several right-wing political strategists (the neoconservatives, led by Richard Perle) favored by the Bush Administration called for military strikes in North Korea against its nuclear sites. [1]

In light of the statements about Iraq and the subsequent events I am not sure just who is the aggressor here. I do know that the non-proliferation treaty requires nuclear states to pursue disarmament as much as it requires non-nuclear states to stay that way. We don't seem to be doing much about that part and until we do I don't see we have the moral high ground.

Article 6 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons] Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament wrote:

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:00 am

complete disarmament under strict and effective international control

There lies the problem. North Korea has been able to cheat inspectors, Iran has been able to cheat inspectors, and so were others (both are or were signatories of the NPT).

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:02 am

But we are honourable men, all honourable men?

That clause refers equally to nuclear nations. What are they doing about it? Why should anyone else honour the obligations if they don't?

Will the US and Britain allow North Korean and Iranian inspectors? I seem to recall Iraq kicked out the inspectors because they were spying and this was subsequently admitted? I might be wrong about that but I seem to recall reading it

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... 1-11a.html

ch85us2001 · Post by **ch85us2001** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:08 am

@ Fiona: Frankly, who cares if were on the high ground? What are we supposed to do, say "Your Right" and let them take over the country?

EDIT- No Flame intended. Hippies.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:13 am

Who is taking over whose country?

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:25 am

Well in view of the the number of forces at the border, N.-Korea looks more poised to invade the South than vice versa.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:27 am

[QUOTE=ch85us2001]Frankly, who cares if were on the high ground? What are we supposed to do, say "Your Right" and let them take over the country?

[/QUOTE]
Thus the US has the right to dictate the policies of other countries?

Ashen · Post by **Ashen** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:47 am

[QUOTE=ch85us2001]
@ Ashen: Yeah, but are a few planes worth fighting in the jungles for twenty years? I seriously believe the US and UN airforces are far superior to any other force in the air. Why give them the advantage of fighting in there own country, where they know the land?

I wonder if they have SAMs?[/QUOTE]

As far as I know, no SAMs.

As for the other, the answer is yes and no. Yes, in the sense of of course that NATO/US and their aircrafts are superior to that of the NK's, let's not mention sheer numbers. I remember well that when we had that NATO/YU conflict, at one point in time there were hundreds of planes above the capital there, and let's face it, that's a huge amount, nobody can fight that. But as I've said the issue really is what is acceptable loss - there is no way that NK will sit and let the NATO/US bomb the heck out of it. They will retaliate. Missiles that would have no problem whiping out the US bases in SK as I've said, casualties there is no 1 thing of course that comes to mind but not only that. If arial combat happens, and a plane is shot down, that's it, but again, as we've seen in the NATO/YU confict quite a few planes on this side were actually heavily/less so damaged and had to land in the near by bases in Tuzla and Albania (something that I might add had zero mentions in the Western news). YU at that point did not conduct any attacks outside of it's territory (at least that is the official version). There is no way that we can expect this from the Koreans and their missiles can do great damage. I won't get into the combat and problems of tiny air-space/training of the two that differs considerably in tactics etc. What's going to happen in one missle hits Seul and thousands die? Do you think SK will just sit and let it happen?

We'd have a full out war on our hands, I don't see any way that can be avoided if airstrikes are started. It won't be a 'few planes' as you say, that's the point. There will be retaliation, that'll most certainly be beyond the borders of NK and then all hell will break loose.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:58 am

Lestat wrote:Well in view of the the number of forces at the border, N.-Korea looks more poised to invade the South than vice versa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 970979.stm

The plan is that 5,000 US troops will leave South Korea this year, 3,000 next year, 2,000 in 2006, and 2,500 in 2007 and 2008.

That will leave a total of about 24,500 troops in the country.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FB28Dg06.html

This suggests that there are still a lot of US troops there. Numbers may not be the only factor?

Ashen · Post by **Ashen** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:07 pm

Guh, server mess up!

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:08 pm

Uhm. We're talking about over 700.000 PRK troops on the Northern Side of the DMZ. And in total the Northern Army is thought to outnumber the Southern one by at least 2 to 1 if not 3 to 1. NK is by many measures the most militarised country on earth (defense spending, % of population in the military).

And yes, the American presence and its alliance with the South Korea (including "nuclear" protection) is probably a deterrence to a repeat of 1950. I'm not a huge fan of American foreign policy in general and there are things it could do different in this case, but North Korea is as trustworthy as Bill Clinton on his sex life.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:16 pm

[QUOTE=Lestat]Uhm. We're talking about over 700.000 PRK troops on the Northern Side of the DMZ. And in total the Northern Army is thought to outnumber the Southern one by at least 2 to 1 if not 3 to 1. NK is by many measures the most militarised country on earth (defense spending, % of population in the military).

And yes, the American presence and its alliance with the South Korea (including "nuclear" protection) is probably a deterrence to a repeat of 1950. I'm not a huge fan of American foreign policy in general and there are things it could do different in this case, but North Korea is as trustworthy as Bill Clinton on his sex life.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I saw the 700,00 figure for troops garrisoned within 100 miles of the DMZ. I have to say it seemed the sensible place to put them, given that the countries are at war, and the mindset of those who support war. And I also saw the heavy miitarisation, which is a preposterous situation, but not that uncommon for all that

I know nothing about Korea except that it was partitioned at Potsdam by people who had nothing to do with the region and everything to do with the cold war. I am not defending the attitude of the North, but judging from other parts of the world the forcible splitting of one country usually leads to problems which don't go away

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:31 pm

Confession: I am also utterly biased against North Korea for the way it treats its own people.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:36 pm

[QUOTE=Lestat]Confession: I am also utterly biased against North Korea for the way it treats its own people.[/QUOTE]

Can't disagree with that if what I read is true. I have no way of judging that. Doesn't change the fact that they are a sovereign state, and that the country was partitioned by force *shrugs*

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:11 pm

Since I trust my ex-colleagues...

[url="http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=2E1A5495-E018-0C72-09EF57D274AB10EC&method=full_html"]MSF article.[/url]

There are more in the same vein.

Sovereign state... well yes... but then again, under certain conditions, I'm a proponent of the "droit d'ingérence" (right to interfere?).

As for the partition, more like a German like partition (consequence of different occupation zones in which each installed an administration to its own liking), apart from the fact that a war followed, which changed little in territorial terms.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:24 pm

[QUOTE=Lestat]Since I trust my ex-colleagues...

MSF article.

There are more in the same vein.

Sovereign state... well yes... but then again, under certain conditions, I'm a proponent of the "droit d'ingérence" (right to interfere?).

As for the partition, more like a German like partition (consequence of different occupation zones in which each installed an administration to its own liking), apart from the fact that a war followed, which changed little in territorial terms.[/QUOTE]

Ok. I am not defending them. But I am parochial and I notice this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4494051.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3746162.stm

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 06,00.html

From Wiki on Calton ( an area of Glasgow)
"Calton is an area of considerable poverty and deprivation. [3] A BBC Scotland news report on 13 February 2006 pointed out that partially due to poor diet, crime, alcohol and drug abuse, life expectancy in Calton is lower than in some areas of Iraq or the Gaza Strip."

We haven't had a famine or a war or a dictator or international economic sanctions to contend with.