Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News 57% want military response to N. Korea missile

Logan, I have no problem with sanctions or taking the little boys daddy to court. But shooting at the little boy or bombing his house are not sanctions. In this case the little boy has not thrown any rocks over the fence yet. Should he be shot because he might?

UN Security Council fails to agree on response to N. Korea missile firing


So here's a question to ponder. Just as with Iran's "nuclear ambitions", we have N. Korea declaring that they are engaging in a perfectly peaceable development of their space travel capabilities. Aren't they entitled to do that, just as much as Iran is entitled to develop their nuclear energy capabilities?

I favor using it as an opportunity to test our interception technology rather than any aggressive action directly against the mainland of North Korea. They are launching an obviously sub-orbital missile that threatens the international community. The reaction would be self-defense and proportional. If they were, indeed, launching a satellite capable of putting something into orbit, there are international conventions that apply to the process. They did, by the way, violate Japanese airspace in the process, which is just provocation for a responsive action. Just because they "claim" to be doing something does not make it so, just as Kim Jong Il is elected "by acclamation" every few years, and "that rock going through your window wasn't intentional, I was aiming for the moon and missed."

They're effing crazy. Yes, crazier than we are.
That's it in a nutshell.
I know it offends you no end but I hold that, as crazy as we might be, they're much much crazier.

No, I am not offended, and agree they do seem crazier than us. Then again, we do not condone shooting crazy people until they are a clear and present danger, which NK, crazy as it is definitely is not.

Carrying the crazy person analogy probably too far, I have been in the room with a person I considered likely crazy in a similar manner -- unpredictable, unstable, hostile -- who I knew had a gun. I would not pull a gun on such a person if I had one, much less shoot if I did, except under truly extreme circumstances.

There are almost always better alternatives, moves that would avoid escalating matters, unduly upsetting them, and certainly not being aggressive toward that person/country.

I just cannot see this situation as one calling for violence of any kind, even shooting down one of their rockets unless clearly aimed at us or an ally. Flying over Japan is not that. We fly our satellites thousands of times and don't expect them to be shot down.

I am most definitely not applauding, condoning or supporting what NK does or says. But to me it is much better to neither enrage them nor bully them back. It just doesn't work with people, and believe it or not, they are people.

---No, I said that I did not believe that THEY could sustain an invasion AND occupation for any length of time.
I wasn't talking about US doing any occupation.
I agree with you, just keep destroying their launch pads and missiles every time they fire them, and let them hang themselves.

You listed a very well written assessment of their status of forces and it's indeed an eye opener.
Now think of the energy and actual money required to run such a monstrosity. I agree that they could most likely inflict major damage, but after that, I think they'd run dry pretty quickly.

It's one thing to amass a great army with great facilities and another to actually USE it. We've seen object lessons of this type with our very own military. Great soldiers, very brave, fantastic gear, and in the end, quagmire after quagmire.

North Korea is not capable of taking over the world, or even its neighbors, for any length of time.

Therefore, when they start firing missiles, it's time to shoot them down. Simple as that....because they're effing nutz.

So would you count yourself among the 57% or would you describe your suggested response as "just testing our missile defense system"?

What is the threshold for sufficiently "effing nutz"?

--Neither am I. I'm just in favor of shooting down their missiles once they enter the Pacific Ocean.
No violence whatsoever...very proportionate response in fact.
Purely defensive, especially considering the quality of their hardware.
You can liken it to a state trooper deploying stop sticks after seeing a drunken owner of a 58 Rambler going 70 down a suburban two lane blacktop with bad brakes and bald tires.
Let's say he knows who the driver is and knows that they're all talk and no action. But this time their rattletrap is quite possibly a danger to the neighborhood.

The penalty should not be death, but the guy should not be allowed to pilot his pile of crap at seventy with bad brakes and bald tires while on a bender either.

If he hits a phone pole and gets ejected from the vehicle there will be an outcry from folks who say this was just some old guy having a bender, but he could have thought twice about getting in the old heap after a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon too, right?

America, F***K yeah vs. Kim Jong Il...Kim Jong Il by a nose.