damian 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 anyone got any new news on yesterdays missile tests into the sea of japan? NK fired 2 rockets to coincide with Powell's visit to SKorea and also the start of SKoreas new president. these NK dudes have an attitude problem. Link to post Share on other sites
newtoallthis 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Anyone got a smiley for "worried"? Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2796067.stm Link to post Share on other sites
RayInJapan 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Something else related, but didn't get much publicity happened about a week ago. Japan's Defense Minister said they would not rule out a pre-emptive strike against NK if they saw NK arming/refueling missiles. Quite a change from the Japanese post-war doctrine that prohibits offensive military operations. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 That's interesting Ray. Where did you find out about that? It's obviously something that the Japanese are going to have to start thinking about. Link to post Share on other sites
hide 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Oh well... Link to post Share on other sites
RayInJapan 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Here: Japan SD minister quote I also saw it on NHK news later that night... Link to post Share on other sites
rachael 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Whats going on with the world right now? It's all a bit too alarming, don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites
snowboard_freak 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I think the up and coming new moon is going to be an "interesting" time period. On the topic - North Korea really do seem to have an aggresive attitude at the moment, well even in the last year or so. Link to post Share on other sites
RayInJapan 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Its technology. 200 hundred years ago - the people on the next continent committed evil acts too but no one knew about them unless they were there. Now, "live" TV and streaming video let us see the evil as it occurs any where in the world. I saw something on tv the other day - just a glint about Issac Newton predicting Armaggeddon 57 years from now. But I didn't catch the whole thing cause the reception was bad cause it was snowing out... Anyone know anything about that? Link to post Share on other sites
RayInJapan 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 What I don't get is how they blame the U.S. for their problems. People can say what they want about Iraq etc but in this case, the US literally has done nothing. Ok - we stopped giving them oil and food for FREE. But isn't that what everyone wants - for the US to mind their own business? And Bush hasn't given them the time of day other than the infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. Kim is acting like quite the little child - throwing all these tantrums until he gets some attention. For those of you in Japan - have you seen the nightly rebroadcasts of NK television? It tickles me watching their newscasts all with an incredibly dramatic rhetorical tone. Sometimes I wish I could understand all of it but since most of it is anti-american, its probably good I can't understand it. Speaking of giving stuff away for free - I'm stumped at why the US govt is PAYING Turkey 15 BILLION DOLLARS (financed in part by my taxes) for the RIGHT to DEFEND TURKEY IN CASE ITS ATTACKED BY IRAQ!!!! What kind of crap is that!! Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 I also read about japans new pre-emptive posture and was equally as suprised that it almost didnt even rate a mention. To me it sounded like a huge change in attitude. Link to post Share on other sites
oblivion 5 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I'm sure the unncessary "Axis of Evil" speech did more than a bit to stir emotions. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Well, basically any country that has long range missiles is a threat to any other country. And the US has lots. And now the US is saying not only that it is ready to use them, but that's it's going to make more that are easier to use. Now if you happen to be one of the other 'rogue states' (ie, not the US), you can reasonably expect some interference in your evil affairs at some point. A good way of preventing that interference is to get some missiles together. These are the very simple rules of the game called 'escalation', and Japan may be getting in on it soon. The biggest escalator of course is the US, with its continued testing, development, breach of agreements, and now its missile shield. Of course, as is well known, the only way to get out the cycle is to de-escalate, but that isn't happening. To say the US has done nothing in this case is laughable. How about following the Chinese example of saying 'no first strike'? That would be a start. But how likely is that?? Link to post Share on other sites
RayInJapan 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Ocean, I always strive to know the truth - please tell me exactly what the US has done to NK, with references of course. And what agreements the US has breached as well, that is resulting in escalations.. The US developed their nuclear arsenal before most of us were born as a deterrence to the Soviet threat. The US has always had a "no first strike" policy. To be exact, the US policy was "mutually assured destruction" where the US would greatly retaliate if attacked first. I don't think anyone ever said only the US has rights to owning ballistic missles. The former Soviet Union has almost as much, if not more, than the US. The amount the both have is limited by the SALT treaties. India and Pakistan also have ICBMs as does the UK, but you don't see the US going off on them. So please don't go around acting like the US is the bad guy because we have nukes. What the US doesn't want is for "rogue" countries to develop and sell WMD to terrorists who have already clearly demonstrated that killing mass numbers of Americans is a good thing. They are psychotic - so why wouldn't they use a back pack nuke if they got their hands on one? Folks who want to read the facts straight from the horses mouth (so to speak) can go to this website to read: US National Security Policy Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find anything that say's the US would use ICBMs or other nukes as "preemptive" weapons. I think it spells out the US policy very clear. China's example...I think they're behaving quite appropriately - stay out of this mess, let all them christians and muslims kill each other off, and then the 1 billion Chinese get to call the shots... cheers Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Ray, your facts are wrong. The US developed the first nuclear arsenal in WWII because it thought having bigger bombs than anybody else would be neat. Everybody else developed arsenals for the same reason, and because the US had one. The US has always had a theoretical 'first strike policy' and has strongly resisted suggestions that it modify it. Check it out and see if I'm wrong on that. You could start here (a random first strike on my part); http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/firststrike.html The US has not 'done' anything to NK - yet. But it might at any time, as history and the present proves, and if it chooses to 'do' something to NK, international law won't have a very loud say in the matter. Personally, I don't really care if NK gets nuclear weapons. It's only when things start getting really hairy that the US and other nuclear powers will have to consider what they're involved in. Besides, the proliferation of nuclear weapons may deter a lot of other smaller scale military adventures which will be a good thing. PS, you don't take what comes out of the horse's mouth at face value do you? Link to post Share on other sites
oo 1 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 "America is the best and greatest country that God gave man" - I just heard that right now on Fox News. No kidding. Can people say that kind of thing without feeling really stooooopid? PS This thread is not anti-American. Link to post Share on other sites
mikazooki 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Quote: The US developed the first nuclear arsenal in WWII because it thought having bigger bombs than anybody else would be neat ocean, did u say 'neat'? not raggin on ya. i think its swell u can use language like that. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Yeah, it was an indirect quote. Why? Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 swell Link to post Share on other sites
indosnm 0 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by oo: "America is the best and greatest country that God gave man" Can people say that kind of thing without feeling really stooooopid? PS This thread is not anti-American. Funny Link to post Share on other sites
RayInJapan 0 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 The first atomic bomb was developed in the US but the US wasn't the only one rushing to develop one. Germany, Russia and Japan were all trying to "build a bigger bomb" AT THE SAME TIME! They were not building them in response to the US having one. The US just happened to finish theirs first. Perhaps the folks literally building the bomb thought it was "neat", but the US strategy at the time was "build it before the Germans do". The Germans had already built medium range missiles and hoped to put a nuke on one of them. Fortunately, the combined forces of the US, UK, and Russia (and a bunch of smaller but just as important other countries) swarmed into Berlin before the Germans could finish their bomb. The website you listed does not back up their commentary with facts or specific references. Besides, it talks about NATO policy and while the US is part of NATO, that doesn't mean NATO policy is the same as US policy. The recent issue with NATO defending Turkey proves that. I'm also skeptical about the locations listed for storage of US nukes. I have no doubt there are US nukes in some of those countries - but I seriously doubt all of them - Turkey for example - we removed our nukes from Turkey during the Cuban missile crisis... I am curious why a US "first strike" policy bothers you so, but the new Japanese "preemptive" policy only rated an "interesting". Personally, I don't think nuclear proliferation is a good thing. I've been to Hiroshima and seen the after effects of a little bomb, so my preference is that all nukes be destroyed. As long as they exist, their potential for abuse exists. Back to the actual topic of the thread.. It appears the missile was a Chinese Silkworm. Not really much of a threat to ROK or Japan...my guess is most likely meant to make a statement without actually provoking a response... Having spent a lot of time in Korea, and having intimate knowledge of the situation militarily - I feel the bottom line with the North Korean situation is this: On their own, without any influence from the US, Japan, China or Russia, NK is going to either implode or explode. Despite their huge standing army, NK is one of the poorest countries on earth and sooner or later, they will either see the light and reunite peacefully instead of continuing to allow their people to starve, or The NK leadership will try to cement its place is history by trying to take the south again, knowing full well millions will die, and with the knowledge they probably won't succede. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 > I am curious why a US "first strike" policy bothers you so, but the new Japanese "preemptive" policy only rated an "interesting". Ray, none of it bothers me much - it's out of my hands. But it seems to me to be one reason for the desperate proliferation that's going on around the world. You have a superpower that says "Not only do we have the right to have as many nukes as we want, we also have the right to use them first as we see fit." I'm totally amazed that as a military person you aren't aware of this US policy, and suggest you do some finding out. A search in Google using "US nuclear doctrine" brings up all sorts of stuff, but this looks good; http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/ Why any 'rogue state' or 'evil nation' shouldn't try for the same capability escapes me. So it's 'interesting' to me that the US and NATO doesn't see how big a part of the problem it is, just as it's 'interesting' that Japan is talking about defending itself, but with so little sense of crisis. Link to post Share on other sites
RayInJapan 0 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 I have to disagree still on the we-can-have-as-many-as-we-want-first strike thing...the following is quoted from the documents on your link: From the first document which is an extract from the 1995 Annual Defense Report: "Major reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons are already underway, confirming the U.S. commitment to a smaller international role for nuclear weapons. Since 1988, the United States has reduced its nuclear arsenal by 59 percent, and either eliminated, truncated, or never fielded over 15 nuclear weapons systems. The United States has no new nuclear weapons programs, and has committed to achieving a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, extending its testing moratorium in the interim." Reduced its arsenal by 59 percent! Eliminated, truncated, never fielded...Sounds like reduction to me, not proliferation. I will admit to reading something recently about Bush wanting to restart testing but I don't know all the facts in that case... From JP 3-12: "The permanent security interest of the United States is its survival as a free and independent nation, with its fundamental values intact and its institutions and people secure. This is best achieved by a defense posture that makes possible war outcomes so uncertain and dangerous, as calculated by potential enemies, as to remove all incentive for initiating attack under any circumstance. Thus, the fundamental purpose of US nuclear forces is to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), particularly nuclear weapons, and to serve as a hedge against the emergence of an overwhelming conventional threat" Another paragraph states: "Deterrence of the employment of enemy WMD, whether it be nuclear, biological, or chemical, requires that the enemy leadership believes the United States has both the ability and will to respond promptly and with selective responses that are credible (commensurate with the scale or scope of enemy attacks and the nature of US interests at stake) and militarily effective. Any deterrence assumes an opposing nation's political leadership will act according to the logic of national self- interest, although this self- interest will be viewed through differing cultural perspectives and the dictates of given situations." The key words here is deterrence and responces. Responding generally means you don't make the first move. As a military person, I've very aware of our policy of Nuclear Deterrence. The first base I was stationed at back in 1983 was a Stategic Air Command base that had nuke armed B-52 Bombers on alert 24 hours a day. Since its was the job of everyone on base to assure those bombers could take off at a moments notice if need be, we were well versed in US Nuclear Doctrine and the importance of our jobs in using "Deterrence" to keep the peace. SAC's motto was "Peace is our Proffession", and in my opinion, SAC did its job well, since the US nor anyone else has engaged in nuclear war in the post WWII era. The policy of deterrence during the cold war worked very well when the enemy of the free world was the USSR and the WARSAW Pact countries. Deterrence kept the communists at bay during the Berlin airlift, kept the Korean War from escelating into WWIII, and allowed cooler heads to prevail during the Cuban Missile Crisis and at the height of the cold war when Nikita said "We will bury you!". The US also told Saddam that if he used WMD during the gulf war back in 91, we reserve the option to retaliate with nukes. That was nothing new, as anyone can read in the joint doctrine pubs listed in your link. America still reserves the right to retaliate with nukes but acknowledges that isn't so easy if the "first strike" is via terrorist and not by another nation-state. Lots of informative reading at sites posted by you and I. I wish more folks would read them instead of basing their opinions solely on unsubstantiated hear-say they saw somewhere on the net... Enjoy, Link to post Share on other sites
xxx 2 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Do we need to spend hours pouring over huge documents we only vaguely understand to have an informed opinion? I don't think so. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts