North Korea

[Bruno]

I've always thought that Kim Jong X was a dictator who did not really believe his own propaganda; someone for whom the propaganda was a means to an end; someone who was rational enough to not do anything terminally stupid.

I am still not entirely convinced that this is not the case, but I am starting to have doubts. It almost seems like they are hell bent on escalating to a war. Now, I understand the need to rattle the old sabre. He has recently come into his power, and needs to show his underlings (and the army, lest they depose him) that he is a strong aggressive leader. I get that so far.

But he does seem to be escalating things rapidly.
The video with his dream of New York burning.
The missile launch.
The latest nuclear test.
And now the announcement that 'this is just the beginning.

It makes me wonder. He'll have to stop escalating pretty soon, or bad things will happen.
The current standoff will not end without either NK caving in, or seoul + millions of Koreans being turned to dust.
The first is unlikely, and the second would be a tragedy. I am not worried in the least about NK directly, but Seoul disappearing would be a tragedy by any measure, both in economic cost and number of lives.

[gssixgun]

Sometimes you have to just shake you head and smile




Honestly this falls squarely in China's and Iran's lap, let them deal with it..

[Str8nSharp]

China will slap him on the back of the head and have him cool his heels, this is just posturing.

[Bruno]

China will slap him on the back of the head and have him cool his heels, this is just posturing.

China was none too happy with earlier nuclear tests. They have much less control over NK than you might think.
The only reason they are nominally supportive of NK is that NK pays lip service to communism.
But contrary to NK, the Chinese are not stupid.

[BobH]

Why worry about NK or who the next war will be with. There is always a handy supply of likely candidates if boredom sets in. Don't ya just hate it when things get too peaceful, something just ain't right about that.

Bob

[ScottGoodman]

I am thankful that NK is not as advanced in the tech dept as many of the other Countries. Here is a quote from a Newsmax article: Obama Wants to Unilaterally Cut Nuclear Arsenal by One-Third

Obama Wants to Unilaterally Cut Nuclear Arsenal by One-ThirdTuesday, 12 Feb 2013 12:10 PM

By Lisa Barron

The White House is set to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal by one-third, signing off on a new internal review of the country’s nuclear weapons strategy, reports The Hill newspaper.

It says that according to a report by the Center for Public Integrity issued Friday, the recommended reductions were part of a draft version of a classified directive compiled by top defense and national security officials.

Sources told CPI that Obama, while he has not officially approved the directive, has not expressed any opposition to the findings, said the paper.

It also reports that administration officials had pushed to get the new directive finalized late last year but the White House at that point objected to the plan; Obama’s advisers did not want the directive released publicly before the November election.

Meanwhile, North Korea said it conducted its third nuclear test on Tuesday in self-defense against “U.S. hostility,” and threatened further steps if necessary.

The move drew widespread condemnation, including from Pyongyang’s ally China. Beijing summoned the North Korean ambassador to protest.

North Korea said the latest test had "greater explosive force" than the 2006 and 2009 tests it conducted.

At the same time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Iran is installing new centrifuges for its uranium enrichment program that could cut the time needed to create a nuclear bomb by a third.

Tehran announced late last month that it planned to install the new machines at its main enrichment plant.

According to the internal U.S. review, however, using a smaller arsenal to target a limited number of threats, including North Korea and Iran, rather than keeping a large ballistic arsenal, would still allow the country to maintain a viable nuclear deterrence strategy.

It’s not clear how many nuclear weapons a one-third cut would come to, said The Hill, because the total amount of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal is classified.

The move is bound to draw criticism from Republicans, who have denounced Obama’s stance on missile defense.


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[anthogia]

I personally think that our next war will be either with Iran or North Korea theyre the single biggest threats to this country in the world today imho!

[Bruno]

I personally think that our next war will be either with Iran or North Korea theyre the single biggest threats to this country in the world today imho!

It is really a stretch to think that NK is any sort of threat to the US. Threat implies a credible chance to do any real damage to the country. Today, NK can barely scrape enough uranium together to make a sizzler that has not even half the yield of the hiroshima bomb. In terms of threat, they can do diddly squat. They are also completely isolated in terms of being able to do anything undetected.

The second a missile launches targeted to the US (nevermind that their ICBM tech is nonexistent), pyongyang will be a glowing crater, seoul be damned. NK is as much a threat to the US as Justin Bieber. Annoying and loud, certainly, but not more.

Of course, the next US war might very well be with NK, but not because they are a credible threat.
Iraq wasn't a credible threat either.

[carlmaloschneider]

It is really a stretch to think that NK is any sort of threat to the US. Threat implies a credible chance to do any real damage to the country...

They're a bit closer to us down here, unfortunately, and we have very little means of defending ourselves. We have one Anti-Aircraft regiment for the entire country, a lot of coastline, a small navy, army and air force and a small population. Australia is probably seen to be very similar to them to the USA, we're just a whole bunch of other westerners, even if we are a bit quaint and cute. I bet there's a lot of countries looking over our fence and thinking, hmmm, that's a nice spot, plenty of food, space and there's water up north. We could move in there and rape that environment for a bit. Isn't it funny that the 'colonists' marched around the world 'better utilising' the 'un-tapped' resources for 'good' and it's just possible that the countries that were 'colonised' (well, not NK but other Asian countries) could plausibly be looking to turn the tables?

Of course the wars these days seem to me to be about religion and oil, but very soon they'll be about water and food production. We can only hope 'they' (the 'baddies') run out of energy and need to resort to sailing ships to get here. We'll bravely ride dolphins out to sea to meet them, with our bronzed Aussie chests bare to the waves, clad only in Rip Curl board shorts, strong hands wielding Lee-Enfield WWII Bolt Action rifles and fight them off the beaches. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender


Just idle rhetoric, no evidence or quotes or articles to refer to :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc

[Bruno]

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

Now you are just talking silly.
Noone is stupid enough to consider Australia worth invading.
But even if they were, just help them get off the boats and lead them to the woods.
The local wildlife will quickly take care of anyone not familiar with an envirnment where everything can poison, rend, or crush you.