North Korea Problems: President Clinton in Pyongyang

[Touring Mars]

Given their track-record with missile launches

When I picture North Korea launching missiles, for some reason this starts playing in my head...

 

[Solid Fro]

A ship under Liberian registry sails into San Diego berths --and a container says --BOOM -- Mushroom Cloud is seen in La--they say "wow ' check that out --and make a Movie .

Or a game...

 

[TrievelA7X]

I'd love to know what a "thousandfold retaliation" would consist of, considering that NorKo only has 6 nukes tops and no way of delivering them to the US.

You didn't hear? They can launch them over 4,000 miles!
That's what the news said (NK's claims) the past two nights.

 

[C-ZETA]

When I picture North Korea launching missiles, for some reason this starts playing in my head...

*ahem* Did you mislink that at all?

 

[Omnis]

Agreed. It's a worst-case scenario, but I have zero confidence in the rationality of North Korea's leadership.

We wirr defeat Choco Pie with... nucrear missres!

I dunno, I just can't stop thinking about Team America.

 

[Solid Fro]

OH, HILARITY!

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A US Navy destroyer is tracking a North Korean ship possibly carrying banned cargo as part of international efforts to enforce UN sanctions against Pyongyang, according to a US defense official.The USS John S. McCain was shadowing the vessel, the Kang Nam, the first ship to be monitored under a UN resolution imposed a week ago that bans arms shipments to and from North Korea, the official said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hthRmh47NN5j4inAZkgY2V-RVfCg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_S._McCain_(DDG-56)

 

[Keef]

They could have picked a better person to name that ship after. Preferably one that's dead, so we can be sure he didn't say "Hey, you know what would be cool, how about a Navy shipped named after me?..."

 

[Famine]

They could have picked a better person to name that ship after. Preferably one that's dead, so we can be sure he didn't say "Hey, you know what would be cool, how about a Navy shipped named after me?..."

They did. They named it after McCain's father, Admiral John S. McCain Jr (died 1981) and his grandfather, Admiral John S. McCain Sr (died 1945). Senator Captain John S. McCain III isn't the ship's namesake.

 

[Sureboss]

Her sister ship, "The Oven Chip" is a nice boat. Though in hot seas it can break up a bit.

 

[Omnis]

They could have picked a better person to name that ship after. Preferably one that's dead, so we can be sure he didn't say "Hey, you know what would be cool, how about a Navy shipped named after me?..."

Yeah, Keef, Famine said it. Would've been quite the achievement for someone who graduated lowest in their class anyway. Can't wait for the USS Obamaha.

Well, anyway, I'd be pissed if that ship gets us into another war over UN crap.

 

[Solid Fro]

Here is the USS Obamaha under going a retrofit for the Hope Change Overseas Contingency (H-COC) non-lethal weapon system:

 

[Omnis]

Here is the USS Obamaha under going a retrofit for the Hope Change Overseas Contingency (H-COC) non-lethal weapon system:

Oh and don't forget the Green Engine Initiative (GEI). That means it runs on dollar bills.

 

[Solid Fro]

The burning dollar bills power the wind turbines and solar panels equipped on the USS Obamaha. The wind turbines push the Obamaha to a max cruising speed of 1 knot. The solar panels run the frozen custard machine on board.

In related news: my fantasy is dashed...

The North Korean-flagged Kang Nam left the port of Nampo last Wednesday, with the U.S. destroyer following it. Two Pentagon officials described a relay operation in which the destroyer USS John S. McCain would hand over surveillance of the ship to the destroyer USS McCampbell. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear_83

Oh, and before anyone jumps the gun and floors it into turbo boost, these ships are named after American heroes, not politicians. The McCampbell, named after the all-time leading ace pilot in the Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_McCampbell_(DDG-85)

 

[Delirious]

...*sigh* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/north-korea-threatens-to-_3_n_220001.html

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea accused Washington of seeking to "provoke a second Korean War" as the regime prepared to hold maritime military exercises off the eastern coast.

U.S. and regional authorities were watching closely for signs that North Korea might fire short- or mid-range missiles during the June 25 to July 10 timeframe cited in a no-sail ban for military drills sent to Japan's Coast Guard.

North Korea had warned previously it would fire a long-range missile as a response to U.N. Security Council condemnation of an April rocket launch seen as a cover for its ballistic missile technology.

An underground nuclear test last month drew more Security Council action: a resolution seeking to clamp down on North Korea's trading of banned arms and weapons-related material by requiring U.N. member states to request inspections of ships carrying suspected cargo.

In a first test of the new resolution, a North Korean ship suspected of transporting illicit weapons was sailing off China's coast with a U.S. destroyer close behind.

The Kang Nam, which left the North Korean port of Nampo a week ago, is believed bound for Myanmar, South Korean and U.S. officials said.

A senior U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was unable to discuss intelligence on the vessel, said Wednesday that the ship had already cleared the Taiwan Strait.

He said he didn't know how much range the Kang Nam has _ that is, whether or when it may need to stop in some port to refuel _ but that the Kang Nam has in the past stopped in Hong Kong's port.
North Korea has said it would consider interception a declaration of war, and on Wednesday accused the U.S. of seeking to start another Korean War.

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," a dispatch from the official Korean Central News Agency said.

The warning came on the eve of the 59th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War. The brutal fighting ended after three years in a truce in 1953, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula divided and in a state of war. The U.S. has 28,500 troops in South Korea to protect against an outbreak of hostilities.

On Wednesday, the top U.S. commander in South Korea, Gen. Walter Sharp, praised soldiers from U.S.-led U.N. forces who died fighting the "tyranny" of communist North Korea decades ago.

"A North Korean victory in the Korean War would have brought the nightmare of tyranny to this great land, thrusting the citizens of the Republic of Korea into a darkness that their northern counterparts have yet to emerge from," he said a commemoration ceremony Wednesday, referring to South Korea by its official name, the Republic of Korea.

Reports about possible missile launches from the North highlighted the state of tension on the Korean peninsula.

A senior South Korean government official said the no-sail ban is believed connected to North Korean plans to fire short- or mid-range missiles. He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department policy.

Yonhap reported that the North may fire a Scud missile with a range of up to 310 miles (500 kilometers) or a short-range ground-to-ship missile with a range of 100 miles (160 kilometers) during the no-sail period.

U.S. defense and counterproliferation officials in Washington said they also expected the North to launch short- to medium-range missiles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

South Korea will expedite the introduction of high-tech unmanned aerial surveillance systems and "bunker-buster" bombs in response to North Korea's provocations, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper said, citing lawmakers.

Meanwhile, a flurry of diplomatic efforts were under way to try getting North Korea to return to disarmament talks.

Russia's top nuclear envoy, Alexei Borodavkin, said after meeting with his South Korean counterpart that Moscow is open to other formats for discussion since Pyongyang has pulled out of formal six-nation negotiations.

In Beijing, top U.S. and Chinese defense officials also discussed North Korea. U.S. Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy was heading next to Tokyo and Seoul for talks.

South Korea has proposed high-level "consultations" to discuss North Korea with the U.S., Russia, China and Japan.

When will this end? Seriously now...

 

[Omnis]

They're going to take a dump in our water supply.

 

[Swiss Legend]

He's trying...

 

[Solid Fro]

He must be ******** an egg roll.

 

[Sureboss]

Tested 4 missiles last night, with a range of about 500km. Japan say they are ready to fight and NK have said that anyone stopping their ships will be "a declaration of war".

War within a month?

 

[Nicksfix]

This article say 7 missles were launched.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090704/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_missile

 

[YSSMAN]

Its still a bunch of hollering on the DPRK's behalf. They clearly want attention, and they're not getting it. Shooting blanks off into the ocean doesn't accomplish a whole lot, and I've yet to believe that they're dumb enough to pull the trigger on the ROK or Japan.

...Japan say they are ready to fight...

War within a month?

Side Note:

The JSDF can only defend Japan, not act as a military force. When Japan says they're "ready to fight," that means "they're willing to pay the US to fight."

 

[GTP_joeninety]

Yes they are making alot of noise - why - want do they hope to gain?

Your side note has now got me worried that these events are going to be the next money makiing operation for the 'war' machine.

i hope that i'm wrong.

 

[Touring Mars]

Although I don't doubt that DPRK have some nuclear capability (evident from their recent nuclear tests) and some rocket launching capability (however unreliable it may be), their belligerent attitude and threats of war against all and sundry smack of a regime that have simply been cornered by their own isolationist policies, and are now lashing out disproportionately at any perceived threat to their regime. Remember too that this is a time of great uncertainty within their country - esp. over who is going to lead them when Kim Jong Il's batteries run out. However, it looks and sounds increasingly like they are stalling or buying time - probably well aware of the fact that their military capabilities are still several years from being anywhere near able to pose a significant threat to the major powers (specifically the US) that they perceive to be threating their existence. However, South Korea are almost certainly already in their sights, and so any action the international community may want to take will be tempered by this fact. That said, an attack by the North on the South would spell the end of the DPRK - not least because they would prove to their own people that they are hypocrites and willing to threaten and kill millions of their own people. Since reunification is a core aspiration of the DPRK, it is hard to see how they could justify attacking the South and expect this to achieve their most cherished goal.

*ahem* Did you mislink that at all?

I was having a dig at their lousy track record on rocket launches...

 

[YSSMAN]

Your side note has now got me worried that these events are going to be the next money makiing operation for the 'war' machine.

Not necessarily. Constitutionally, Japan is not allowed to fight a war unless it is in a defensive manner. Article 9, for all intensive purposes is certainly out-of-date, but until we decide to stop re-signing their protection agreements, the United States will act as the major military power in the region. So, say Japan is attacked, they will certainly be able to defend themselves with their own Air Force and Navy, but they will not be able to make a counter-offensive against the DPRK. That would be "our job."

 

[Omnis]

Not necessarily. Constitutionally, Japan is not allowed to fight a war unless it is in a defensive manner. Article 9, for all intensive purposes is certainly out-of-date, but until we decide to stop re-signing their protection agreements, the United States will act as the major military power in the region. So, say Japan is attacked, they will certainly be able to defend themselves with their own Air Force and Navy, but they will not be able to make a counter-offensive against the DPRK. That would be "our job."

Isn't that stupid? Japan could send in their ultra-nationalists and they'd clean up.

 

[YSSMAN]

It sounds like the Japanese Democratic Party would be more willing to alter or remove Article 9 long before the Japanese Social Democrats will. Then again, they're pretty much the same party, just different factions, anyway.

Plus, they have this:

So cool. So freakin' cool.


Otherwise, I'm sure their JDM tyte F15s and such will have no problem handling "teh biznez" in Korea.

 

[Richardrfo]

Is 'Article 9' a piece from the WWII era? Certainly sounds like it.

 

[YSSMAN]

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution was written-in after the War, you are right about that. Keep in mind that before the war, Japan had risen to a great level of power in little time at all, and had been a serious military competitor to the United States in the Pacific. What rules we had attempted to create in the inter-war period to limit the power of the Japanese really was worth nothing. Following the end of the war, we knew that it would not have been long before Japan's power would rise again, so rules like these were deemed necessary to sustain the United State's regional dominance.

Of course, there are plenty of arguments for the Japanese to ditch Article 9, gain a seat on the UN Security Council, and ultimately take their rightful place as a regional power in the Pacific. But, until the US is willing to relinquish that responsibility or the Japanese decide otherwise (add to that the Chinese complication as well), not much will change. Probably.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

The changing of article 9 has been in the news here for a long time. There was a debate about it when the Japanese ships were running refueling missions in the gulf, and it came up again when Japan sent naval ships to Somalia. I think article 9 is slowly being whittled away and will have no relevance before very long. The actions of North Korea will probably accelerate its demise.

 

[Joel]

I'm seriously getting pissed at North Korea right now. I am very nervous about all of this 🤬 with my cousin teaching in South Korea. If North Korea launches a major offensive on South Korea I hope to hell that NATO can get there in time. Also, this Article 9 stuff is a load of BS. Does the US STILL not trust Japan? Why would Japan want to attack the US? it would be utterly useless, and they would lose a HUGE trading partner.

 

[YSSMAN]

If North Korea launches a major offensive on South Korea I hope to hell that NATO can get there in time.

Well, it wouldn't be NATO, as it isn't really their area of operation. ANZUS, maybe, but I don't see why the Australians or New Zealanders would get involved. It would all depend on who is attack, and by what method to determine who does what first. Furthermore, what China wants to do. The ROK, with the backup of the US, could handily defend the area from the air without much work. But, when it comes to actually invading and occupying the DPRK, China would likely not like having the US on their doorstep. That, or a major US ally right there as well.

Also, this Article 9 stuff is a load of BS. Does the US STILL not trust Japan? Why would Japan want to attack the US? it would be utterly useless, and they would lose a HUGE trading partner.

Well, this comes off the heels of decades of worry during the early post-war years and of course, the Cold War. Japan's post-war power, although greatly diminished, was still a threat to American power once they would inevitably recover. Capping their power, removing their ability to attack, and placing the US directly into the middle of SE Asia was a direct response to the growth in Soviet power, their growing influence in Korea, as well as the eventual successes of the Communists in China.

These days, its nothing personal, other than a threat to America's military hegemony. Apparently most of our leaders in the US think the Cold War is still going.