N. Korea Reportedly Launches 4 Missiles

[Shady]

N. Korea Reportedly Launches 4 Missiles

North Korea test-launched at least two mid-range missiles Wednesday that landed in the Sea of Japan, Japanese media reported, and a State Department official said the North appeared ready to launch the long- range Taepodong-2

Link

Hmmm, looks like a missile shield ain't such a bad idea huh? :angry:

[Black Dog]

Hmmm, looks like a missile shield ain't such a bad idea huh?

Sure: if it worked and we actually had any reason to believe North Koprea would ever actually launch a nuclear attack on North America which would result in the agressors total annihalation.

[GostHacked]

Hmmm, looks like a missile shield ain't such a bad idea huh?

Sure: if it worked and we actually had any reason to believe North Koprea would ever actually launch a nuclear attack on North America which would result in the agressors total annihalation.

And we all know that Iran is a bigger threat than NK right??

[sharkman]

Hmmm, looks like a missile shield ain't such a bad idea huh?

Sure: if it worked and we actually had any reason to believe North Koprea would ever actually launch a nuclear attack on North America which would result in the agressors total annihalation.

I don't know, now we're getting into an area where things could escalate into a full open nuclear war. It's never happened where a nation has made a nuclear attack on another that had nuclear weapons, and it would be pretty scary, but NK is kooky enough they might just try one day.

On the other hand, the missle shield technology has been evolving for probably a decade, and it's much better now than it was then.

Remember, all of this because Clinton thought the solution was to sign a treaty with this nutcase. Now they've got all the money the U.S. paid them to not develop nuclear weapons AND actual nuclear weapons. That's why signing a treaty with someone who is a nutcase(Iranian President) is a bad idea.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear sharkman,

Now they've got all the money the U.S. paid them to not develop nuclear weapons AND actual nuclear weapons

There is no evidence that they actually have nukes, only their say-so. Which isn't worth taking to any bank.

Here is the latest from the White House, which suggests they actually tested 6 missiles, one of which was the Taepodong, which evidently failed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...60704-voa03.htm

North Korea Conducts Missile Tests

By Paula Wolfson

White House

05 July 2006

In-Depth Coverage U.S. officials say North Korea has test fired at least six missiles, including a long-range missile that failed shortly after launch. High level consultations are underway.

White House officials call the series of launches a provocation, but add there is no immediate threat to the United States.

All the tests occurred early Wednesday morning local time within the span of hours. Most involved short to medium range missiles that landed in the Sea of Japan. But one, the failed missile, was a Taepodong 2, the intercontinental missile that has been a focus of international attention.

[Johnny Utah]

Kim Jong Il picked July 4th 2006 the 230th year of the United States Independence and the same day the Space Shuttle Discovery lifted off to fire North Korea's Missiles to get the World's attention as it was being focused on Iran and it's Nuclear issues. Well now North Korea has the World's attention and there will be consenquences. The failure of the Taepodong-2 Missile only means North Korea hasn't perfected it yet while launching of the other Missiles was just more sabre-rattling..

[windyman]

North korea is no threat. They're lucky if their missiles even get off the launch pad properly. Bush should not be threatened by such a weak socialist country that can't even feed their own people properly.

[Shady]

Sure: if it worked and we actually had any reason to believe North Koprea would ever actually launch a nuclear attack on North America which would result in the agressors total annihalation

Well, if one doesn't test, research and develop such technology, then it's pretty safe to say it will never work as efficiently as desired. As to the intent of North Korea, I don't think anyone knows for sure what Kim Jong Ill's intentions might be. Intelligence is very scarce.

Remember, all of this because Clinton thought the solution was to sign a treaty with this nutcase

You're absolutely right. It's all part of the Clinton Administration's policy of pseudo-peace and pseudo-prosperity, while leaving all the difficult decisions to future Presidents (terrorism, Iraq, alternative energy, illegal immigration, healthcare, education, etc). Eight years of wasted time.

The failure of the Taepodong-2 Missile only means North Korea hasn't perfected it yet.

Exactly. It hasn't been perfected, yet.

They're lucky if their missiles even get off the launch pad properly

True, for now. However, I still think that missile defense is an important route to continue to develop and explore. It could eliminate the threat of tin-pot dictators like Ill, as well as protect from accidental launches. Seems like a good safe-guard to have in place.

[Black Dog]

True, for now. However, I still think that missile defense is an important route to continue to develop and explore. It could eliminate the threat of tin-pot dictators like Ill, as well as protect from accidental launches. Seems like a good safe-guard to have in place.

The underlying assumption here is that missile defence can work. And maybe it can. But is it the best solution? Eh...not so much. Given the minimal threat posed by "tin-pt dictators" and accidental launches, plus the availability of other proven strategies like containment and deterrence makes missile defence an extravagant white elephant, a massive welfare scheme.

[America1]

True, for now. However, I still think that missile defense is an important route to continue to develop and explore. It could eliminate the threat of tin-pot dictators like Ill, as well as protect from accidental launches. Seems like a good safe-guard to have in place.

The underlying assumption here is that missile defence can work. And maybe it can. But is it the best solution? Eh...not so much. Given the minimal threat posed by "tin-pt dictators" and accidental launches, plus the availability of other proven strategies like containment and deterrence makes missile defence an extravagant white elephant, a massive welfare scheme.

Typical liberal canadian comment, bitching about how others spend their money and whining about how difficult things are so it is just not worth doing.

When we do get it working, the rest of the world will cry about how it's not fair and that we should give them the tech to make things "Fair".

[Black Dog]

Typical liberal canadian comment, bitching about how others spend their money and whining about how difficult things are so it is just not worth doing.

When we do get it working, the rest of the world will cry about how it's not fair and that we should give them the tech to make things "Fair".

Look dingus, if you want your government to keep shovelling buckets of taxpayer money to Lockeed and Rayethon to line their shareholders' pockets and produce a dodgy "solution" to a non-existent problem, go right ahead. No sweat off my balls.

[America1]

Typical liberal canadian comment, bitching about how others spend their money and whining about how difficult things are so it is just not worth doing.

When we do get it working, the rest of the world will cry about how it's not fair and that we should give them the tech to make things "Fair".

Look dingus, if you want your government to keep shovelling buckets of taxpayer money to Lockeed and Rayethon to line their shareholders' pockets and produce a dodgy "solution" to a non-existent problem, go right ahead. No sweat off my balls.

"Dingus" - oh no, take it back, please!!! (dripping with sarcasm). Honestly, is that the best you can come up with? You f’en nerd!

There are 2 possible outcomes from the program.

1.) If you are right and it doesn't work, fine so be it. I'd rather spend the money on science and engineering possibilities that support US companies and provide hundreds of thousand s of jobs in the US then give it away on a social program to those who don't produce anything.

2.) If it does work, the US is safe from incoming ICBMs, make us 1 step in front of the world and safer as a nation. At the same time still providing hundreds of thousand s of jobs in the US.

Either way, I think we come out on top.

As far as the "No sweat off my balls" comment, I know its not and I don't give a flying sh*t. This proves yet again why the US’s “Can do attitude” make us the GREATEST NATION ON THE EARTH! And unfortunately, your attitude is what keeps canada and europe behind the US.

[Shady]

But is it the best solution?

The best solution would be a free and democratic North Korea. However, I think it's a realistic safe-guard against such problems these type of dictators present.

Given the minimal threat posed by "tin-pt dictators" and accidental launches, plus the availability of other proven strategies like containment and deterrence

It may be a minimal threat now, but why wait until the threat is greater? I fail to understand such logic. And strategies such as containment and deterrence are what have led to North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons (see broken treaty).

a massive welfare scheme.

Work for money isn't welfare. Companies employing scientists, engineers and manufacturers doing research and development on technology isn't welfare. Very poor analogy.

Typical liberal canadian comment, bitching about how others spend their money

I gotta agree. They're always an expert on spending other people's money.

[Black Dog]

There are 2 possible outcomes from the program.

1.) If you are right and it doesn't work, fine so be it. I'd rather spend the money on science and engineering possibilities that support US companies and provide hundreds of thousand s of jobs in the US then give it away on a social program to those who don't produce anything.

Newsflash! Reckless government spending now okay by conservatives! Film at 11.

2.) If it does work, the US is safe from incoming ICBMs, make us 1 step in front of the world and safer as a nation. At the same time still providing hundreds of thousand s of jobs in the US.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs again? Any evidence that NMD will have that kind of impact?

It may be a minimal threat now, but why wait until the threat is greater? I fail to understand such logic.

Why wil the threat increase? North Korea can develop more nukes and more missiles capable of delivering them, but that would not increase the threat they pose because no mater what North Korea wil be unable to use those weapons without being destroyed itself.

And strategies such as containment and deterrence are what have led to North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons (see broken treaty).

Those strategies didn't stop China, the Soviet Union from aqcuiring nukes either. But it did prevent their use (BTW: what "broken treaty?)

Work for money isn't welfare. Companies employing scientists, engineers and manufacturers doing research and development on technology isn't welfare. Very poor analogy.

So not welfare, just an old-fashioned snake-oil scam.

(Or, if you prefer, a variant on the Underpants Gnome theory of business)

[America1]

There are 2 possible outcomes from the program.

1.) If you are right and it doesn't work, fine so be it. I'd rather spend the money on science and engineering possibilities that support US companies and provide hundreds of thousand s of jobs in the US then give it away on a social program to those who don't produce anything.

Newsflash! Reckless government spending now okay by conservatives! Film at 11.

Even if it doesn't work, at very least it furthers scientific and engineering R&D. Large projects like this one almost always push the envelop and produce new military civilian products (i.e.: microwave, internet, cell phones, GPS, etc). So how is this a "Reckless" again?

[sharkman]

True, for now. However, I still think that missile defense is an important route to continue to develop and explore. It could eliminate the threat of tin-pot dictators like Ill, as well as protect from accidental launches. Seems like a good safe-guard to have in place.

The underlying assumption here is that missile defence can work. And maybe it can. But is it the best solution? Eh...not so much. Given the minimal threat posed by "tin-pt dictators" and accidental launches, plus the availability of other proven strategies like containment and deterrence makes missile defence an extravagant white elephant, a massive welfare scheme.

I think missile defense is the best solution in countries near where nutbar dictators live. Places around North Korea and Iran come to mind. And it's a defensive weapon only used to stop another's aggression.

Containment and deterrence didn't keep NK from the Nuclear club, and now Iran wants in, what else do you do besides blowing up their factories.

[Black Dog]

Containment and deterrence didn't keep NK from the Nuclear club, and now Iran wants in, what else do you do besides blowing up their factories

The goal of detrrence isn't to prevent thwe aqcuisition of nukes, but their use.

It's interesting that no one bothers to ask why North Korea (or Iran) is seeking nuclear capabilities. The assumption is always that they will use them, when the more obvious reason (deterring atacks on themselves) is overlooked.

[Shady]

Newsflash! Reckless government spending now okay by conservatives! Film at 11.

Newsflash! Another strawman!

Why wil the threat increase?

Easy. Increased nuclear arsenal combined with increased missile efficiency. It's not rocket science. Opps, actually it is!

(BTW: what "broken treaty?)

The numerous agreements they've signed over the last two decades, in which they've broken.

It's interesting that no one bothers to ask why North Korea (or Iran) is seeking nuclear capabilities

Ahh, tho old "why do they hate us?" question. I don't care why some murderous dictator feels it's necessary to pursuit nuclear weapon technology.

I think missile defense is the best solution in countries near where nutbar dictators live. Places around North Korea and Iran come to mind. And it's a defensive weapon only used to stop another's aggression

Yes, I agree. It is the best solution. I think it's one of the reasons why Israel and Japan have been developing their own missile defense.

[Black Dog]

Easy. Increased nuclear arsenal combined with increased missile efficiency. It's not rocket science. Opps, actually it is

But that doesn't increase the probability of them being used.

The numerous agreements they've signed over the last two decades, in which they've broken.

You have any specific one's in mind? I'm just curious.

Ahh, tho old "why do they hate us?" question. I don't care why some murderous dictator feels it's necessary to pursuit nuclear weapon technology.

Uh...who said anything about "hate"? There's good strategic reasons for these countries to pursue nuclear weapons.

Yes, I agree. It is the best solution. I think it's one of the reasons why Israel and Japan have been developing their own missile defense.

So let me get this straight: deterrence and containment are dismissed because those strategioes don't prevent "nutbars" like NK from acquiring nukes...but missile defense (which doesn't prevent that either) is the "best solution?" Huh?

[GostHacked]

The United States has used more nuclear weapon technology on other countries than any country on earth. Bunker busters (tactical nukes which the US plans to build bigger and better bunker busters) Depleted uranium for ammo in the A-10 Warthogs. With all that spread around, one nuke from NK or Iran will not really make a lick of difference in comparison to how the US has used nuclear weapon technology around the world against other enemies.

Yah yah look at the reasons WHY Iran and NK ar trying to build nukes (NOT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM). Self preservation and protection (remeber the bravery of being out of range. My bullet can hit you, but you cannot hit me, so I am going to kill you) IF any of you think that Iran or NK just want to wipe any country off the map is shortsighted and narrow minded. If all you believe that 'heys they hate freedom and democracy' (tired of that crap) from all the talking heads, then you really need to open up the eyes and the mind and really see what is going on.

Iran and NK are not stupid to just launch nukes at random. If Iran of NK launched a serious nuke threat against any country, then it would be turned into a big piece of glass. Kim Jong Ill is NOT THAT STUPID to risk that. Neither is the leader of Iran, he is not that stupid to risk his entire country being turned to glass for him launching one nuke.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look folks the genie is out of the bottle. There ain't nobody gonna put it back in. The deal here is simple it , the nukes, are the new big stick. Everybody wants the biggest stick to walk around in the jungle.

Having said that, who gets to determine exactly whom is entitled to a big stick? As long as some smart fellas are left around to reverse engineer the damned things they are going to get built, period. That is simple logic. If you have a big stick you can sit at the table with the big boys, and get what you want. They, the North Koreans or the Iranians want to sit at the table, now how do you figure that you can stiop them from WANTING that. They want it and they are going to get it, whether we like it or not. Unless people decide to get carried away, and act to prevent it. War is the only way to prevent their acquiring nukes.

Starting a war to prevent these people from getting nukes isn't real bright. Oh we will win the war, battle by battle, but we won't win the peace that follows. Sooner or later somedirt bag terrorist will get their hands on the technology ans shove it up our collective arses. That will be very bad.

If you want to prevent people from ever using the damn things ban them outright. If we are going to have a war to stop Fred or Barney or whoever from getting the damned things then maybe we should wake up and figure out that we will always be faced with the same situation until we do something about it. If war is inevitable then let it be over getting rid of the detestable things. Make the possesion of a nuclear weapon a crime against humanity once and for all time. Make the punishment death by nuclear blast. Take the existing nukes and give them all to the security council, who can throw them at the idiots who think that they or their nation could have them to hold over anybody's head.

These things are not toys, and nobody, no single nation should have access to them. The solution is very simple, now all that we need are the politicians will the balls to read the freaking writing on the walland act in the interests of their citizens to forever eliminate the horrific use of weapons of mass destruction.

[jdobbin]

Look folks the genie is out of the bottle. There ain't nobody gonna put it back in. The deal here is simple it , the nukes, are the new big stick. Everybody wants the biggest stick to walk around in the jungle.

Having said that, who gets to determine exactly whom is entitled to a big stick? As long as some smart fellas are left around to reverse engineer the damned things they are going to get built, period. That is simple logic. If you have a big stick you can sit at the table with the big boys, and get what you want. They, the North Koreans or the Iranians want to sit at the table, now how do you figure that you can stiop them from WANTING that. They want it and they are going to get it, whether we like it or not. Unless people decide to get carried away, and act to prevent it. War is the only way to prevent their acquiring nukes.

Starting a war to prevent these people from getting nukes isn't real bright. Oh we will win the war, battle by battle, but we won't win the peace that follows. Sooner or later somedirt bag terrorist will get their hands on the technology ans shove it up our collective arses. That will be very bad.

If you want to prevent people from ever using the damn things ban them outright. If we are going to have a war to stop Fred or Barney or whoever from getting the damned things then maybe we should wake up and figure out that we will always be faced with the same situation until we do something about it. If war is inevitable then let it be over getting rid of the detestable things. Make the possesion of a nuclear weapon a crime against humanity once and for all time. Make the punishment death by nuclear blast. Take the existing nukes and give them all to the security council, who can throw them at the idiots who think that they or their nation could have them to hold over anybody's head.

These things are not toys, and nobody, no single nation should have access to them. The solution is very simple, now all that we need are the politicians will the balls to read the freaking writing on the walland act in the interests of their citizens to forever eliminate the horrific use of weapons of mass destruction.

Conservatives in the U.S. are demanding a first strike and regime change in North Korea. Bush is understandably more reticent about North Korea because he may have to use nuclear weapons to prevent North Korea from attacking the south.

[Shady]

But that doesn't increase the probability of them being used

Of course it does. When something doesn't work, you can't use it. When something does, you can. See the difference?

You have any specific one's in mind? I'm just curious

There's a few, almost one in each decade. If you're that curious, do some research.

There's good strategic reasons for these countries to pursue nuclear weapons

Absolutely. But it doesn't mean they should be permitted. Again, I don't care why murderous, backwards, dictators seek to pursue nuclear weapons.

So let me get this straight: deterrence and containment are dismissed because those strategioes don't prevent "nutbars" like NK from acquiring nukes...but missile defense (which doesn't prevent that either) is the "best solution?" Huh?

Missile defense is the best solution to nuclear blackmail from these types of threats. I'm not sure what deterrence and containment strategies even mean.

The United States has used more nuclear weapon technology on other countries than any country on earth

Thanks for the info. No one has said otherwise.

Yah yah look at the reasons WHY Iran and NK ar trying to build nukes (NOT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM). Self preservation and protection

I don't care why murderous dictators feel it's necessary to pursue nuclear technology. Self preservation? You mean the preservation of backwards, restrictive, terroristic societies? Or maybe the destruction of Israel as stated by the President of Iran.

[Black Dog]

Of course it does. When something doesn't work, you can't use it. When something does, you can. See the difference?

No. Just because they have tha ability to use nukes, does not mean they will. For example, the United States and Soviet Union didn't use nukes on each other despite 40 years of continuous improvement in their ability to do so.

Missile defense is the best solution to nuclear blackmail from these types of threats. I'm not sure what deterrence and containment strategies even mean.

Your faith in missile defense technology is amusing. And even if the technolgy was 100 per cent foolproof, it is the certainty of the aggressors own destruction that would ensure the missiles remain on the launch pad. Missile defense is uneccesary, a disproportinate response to a minor threat.

As for containment and deterrence: containment is a strategy that entails isolating and weakening an enemy. Sanctions would be a tactical application of a containment strategy. Deterrence, of course, simply uses the threat of retaliation to curb aggression.

[GostHacked]

QUOTE(GostHacked)

Yah yah look at the reasons WHY Iran and NK ar trying to build nukes (NOT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM). Self preservation and protection

I don't care why murderous dictators feel it's necessary to pursue nuclear technology. Self preservation? You mean the preservation of backwards, restrictive, terroristic societies? Or maybe the destruction of Israel as stated by the President of Iran.

Yeah here we go with the Isreal support again :angry:

Iran has had US influence in its borders in the past. Remember the Shaw? Remember the Hostage crisis, remember what caused the whole mess to begin with?? Really learn your history and go back more than 5 years to look at the overal bigger picture.