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

I believe you misread my tome. It made clear that rocks were being tossed over the fence; they just had not yet done serious damage. Must we wait until they do before we can stop the launching of those missiles? Or may we remove the missiles to eliminate the problem?

If one wishes to play the game of shooting down one of this fellow's missles as a test: (1) one had better be 100% certain that one can shoot it down, else we will end up looking the right prat -- not to mention losing serious deterent cred, and (2) one had better be prepared for, at the least, a possible retaliatory strike (large or small) on Seoul, South Korea or a site that is less of a tripwire. And with 30 some thousand US troops still babysitting the South Koreans, we probably end up with a resumption of the Korean War and lots of instant boots on the ground. in other words, a decision to shoot down one of this fellow's missile is also a decision to go to war.

GOT BIG GUNS?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

North Korea's military is perfectly designed to invade and occupy South Korea, but of course that would not get them much benefit since SK's wealth is in it's people and business relationships with the rest of the world.

NK could not invade much anywhere else and occupy that territory for very long, without getting their collective asses kicked.

They also don't have the ability to mount one of their nuclear weapons on an ICBM, and deliver it to anyplace that would threaten us. But what they do have is a navy and also plenty of cargo ships. They could very easily react to a missile shoot-down by placing a few of their nukes inside shipping containers, and then sailing them into San Francisco bay, Honolulu, and Long Beach for simultaneous detonation.

For some silly reason, people are fixated on missiles. (Yes, I know they look great in a parade.) I suspect it's a phallic thing. Shipping containers are much more reliable, and way, way cheaper.

I couldnt agree more.

Well said, Issodhos. I tried to point out earlier that North Korea has massive forces aimed at a country protected by the United States. Consensus among the 57% here who favor military action seems to be that they couldn't afford to fight the war for very long. They already have the guns, the ammunition, The soldiers and even the nukes. They have the infrastructure in place and they have, most of all, the desire to kill Americans. Those 30,000 troops in South Korea become nothing but cannon fodder. We didn't score a definite win in Korea the first time. North Vietnam was also a poor country, they whipped our asses royally. After seven years in Iraq all we have achieved is an uncomfortable impasse, and they had NO ARMY AT ALL.
Americans have this misguided notion that were are all powerful, able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. More often than not we fall on our faces.
Logan. Yes, you must wait until damage occurs. When the little boys daddy gets your summons to go to court he will walk next door and kill your clients. You will win your case but your client will die. There will be no one left to pay your bill.
You both lose. The neighbor is crazy, he doesn't give a damn.

Those 30,000 troops in the ROK are nothing but cannon fodder. The brigade that mans the DMZ has, or had a motto: "Stands Alone". They have, or had, DIP orders. Die In Place orders(Actually, I don't know if the DIP orders are true or not. That may have been a case of GIs braggin about how bad-a** they are.) They are a tripwire, though. If the DPRK were to invade the ROK,the full might of the US military would then be brought down on them. That was supposed to be the deterrent. At least, that's how it was when I was still in the army.

It seems the missle was launched succesfully, and crashed into the Pacific. It also seems that the DPRK is touting the success of thier launch, and the "fact" that they now have a satellite in orbit. Kinda sad, really.

Maybe Kim Jong-Il finally saw "Team America:World Police" and is unhappy with his portrayal. He can sing better than that.

Or perhaps Kim read "King David's Spaceship".

Plot summary: Ruler of a planet recruits a loyal soldier to go into space in a jury-rigged ship-of-no-return, so the alien federation visiting will treat the planet's civilization as "space-faring". (IE. not treat them as savages.) Happy ending has the brave (foolhardy) astronaut rescued by the aliens, and they decide a single one-way trip qualifies.

Kim now claims a satellite, ICBMs, and his nukes. Now he has a "big-boy" country...

If anything needs a military response, it is the piracy problem off the horn of Africa. Why don't ships traveling those routes have a squad of soldiers and some 50 caliber machine guns mounted on the decks?

Or even more curious: Why havn't some groups of mercenarys followed the pirates home, to steal their ransom money?

Since, as yet, there is no functioning world police force it seems to me that shipping companies should hire whatever security forces are necessary to protect their vessels. What's Blackwater up to these days?

Actually, they are already doing so. Even the US Navy has deployed ships and personnel to combat piracy.

Furthermore, the US managed to pressure the United Nations into sanctioning incursions into Somalia by foreign armed forces in pursuit of pirates, as PIA suggests above.

You all can see how effective these means have been, as is so tiresomely often the case when thinking is confined to the "military response" box instead of identifying and addressing the underlying conditions that guarantee escalation rather than mitigation will result. We saw this in Iraq, where a "cakewalk" that would be over in "weeks rather than months" turned into a seven-year, $2 Trillion debacle with hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced. We see this in Afghanistan, rapidly coming of age as "Obama's Iraq", and we have the opportunity to see it again in Korea if we decide to poke the hornets' nest.