What to do about North Korea...?

"Bob Noel" wrote:


Don't make the mistake of assuming that others are operating by
roughly the same motivations as us. Sometimes diplomacy will
work, but it requires that the other side is actually interested in
peace.

And that the other side's leadership is even rational. There is considerable
evidence that Kim Jong Il is nuts.

--
Dan

'Gut feeling'

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any
rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well
known.

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("John" wrote)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but in May 2003, the USS Lincoln *was*
returning home (to its home port in Washington). Its mission certainly
was acccomplished, and with pride. Please try to pay attention with a
little more care.


I do pay attention!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in580661.shtml
The lie(s).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in614998.shtml
The truth.

The Pentagon lied to protect the president. If they lied over something
this stoooopid, don't you think they will also lie when it really matters?
YES, they will.

Ah, yes...CBS News, home of Dan Rather.

Giggle

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Bob Noel" wrote:


Don't make the mistake of assuming that others are operating by
roughly the same motivations as us. Sometimes diplomacy will
work, but it requires that the other side is actually interested in
peace.

And that the other side's leadership is even rational. There is
considerable evidence that Kim Jong Il is nuts.


Yes, Jong Mentally Il is nuts.

So what do we do about it?

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
"We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling
us. We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the
puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence
men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian
agents. With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to
become the plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that.
[ ] The lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the
bureaucratic will to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension
of Dick Cheney, and the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell
combined to get us into a situation we never wanted to be in, a situation
no self-respecting nation ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to
get out of."

-John Derbyshire, National Review Online, June 12th, 2006
This same Derbyshire?

"Does it not occur to you liberals, not even
for a passing instant, that by purging all
sacred images, references, and words
from our public life, you are leaving us
with nothing but a cold temple presided
over by the Goddess of Reason • that
counterfeit deity who, as history has
proved time and time and time again,
inspires no affection, retains no loyalties,
soothes no grief, justifies no sacrifice,
gives no comfort, extends no charity,
displays no pity, and offers no hope,
except to the tiny cliques of fanatical
ideologues who tend her cold blue
flame." -- John Derbyshire
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbys...hire082503.asp

Looks like they left the door unlocked at the funny farm again.

Sounds like a right fine mind to me. Extreme? yes. Wrong side? yes.
But not even close to the funny farm. Let's stop 'dissing' our
thinkers and communicators and focus on the content.

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

Hmmmmm.....no. N. Korea is an isolated society controlled by a few
kooks without a cause that inspires followers. True, the worst case
is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US. A much more
likely scenario is they keep making threats until we can get some
practical people in the White House, replacing the current idelogues,
who will actually talk to the kooks and see what they really want (my
guess is some assurance they won't be invaded).


You call them kooks and in the same paragraph assume that what they really
want is something reasonable. Do you not see error in logic there?

"Blanche Cohen" wrote in message
...
I have no doubt there are US & Russian subs, just waiting around
to pick up the rockets and other debris...From what I understand,
the NK guidance system is only slightly better than the cruise control
on my car.


I think your cars cruise control is better. Has your car blown up?

In article ,
Jose wrote:

True, the worst case
is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US.

Were the US to even =attempt= to retalliate with nukes would be a
disaster and make us the enemy of the world . . .

I think it is possible to contain the Korea threat. It is simple, it is
based on known principles (nations wanting power over other nations),
and it is basically military.

1) I'd sure like to understand what the South Korean govt and the South
Korean people -- the players who really right up against the DMZ --
really, really think about the whole North Korean situation?

The SK govt is by no means intrinsically stupid or evil, and the SK
people are fairly free, well informed about the world, and quite savvy.
Together they've done very well in other areas; I wonder what their
views on this overwhelming and overhanging situation are.

2) As for the nuclear situation, viewed more broadly: IMHO the US
nuclear policy should be:

a) Decide, state explicitly and openly, and try to make clear we
really mean that our nation's basic nuclear policy is "No first use,
ever";

b) As a corollary of this, openly and verifiably get rid of all
existing tactical nukes (bunker-busters, artillery shells, other
nonsense) and terminate all programs developing such things;

c) At the same time maintain a modest but adequate array of strategic
nukes and especially the means to deliver them anywhere, any time,
worldwide and on quite short notice;

d) And finally let it be known, behind the scenes if not openly,
that the implicit corollary of "no first use" is pretty sure to mean,
for us, "more or less guaranteed (and forceful) second use", whether as
retaliation for a first-use attack on us, or as punishment for a first
use by someone else against someone else (or even, implied between the
lines, as punishment for an "innocent" nation that had let terrorist
elements use their nation as a base for planning or preparing a nuclear
terrorist act carried out against us).

The purpose of (a) and (b) is to set a tone, set an example, get morally
aligned with the rest of the world.

The purpose of (c) and (d) is twofold:

--Make clear to rational rogue governments (e.g., Pakistan) that
spending resources on nuclear weapons will be ultimately worse than
useless; all they can do with them in the end is destroy themselves.

--More important, make clear to *all* governments, friend, foe, or just
on the sidelines that it's essential for their own long-term well-being
to control rogue groups who may try to operate within their borders, and
to join in international efforts to control rogue states, rational or
otherwise.

This last point seems to me probably the most important one of all.

Dan Luke wrote:

"John" wrote:


Dan Luke wrote:


[snip]

I'm sure you remember...

"Mission accomplished!"
- Banner welcoming George W. Bush aboard the USS Lincoln, May, 2003?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but in May 2003, the USS Lincoln *was*
returning home (to its home port in Washington). Its mission certainly
was acccomplished, and with pride. Please try to pay attention with a
little more care.


Utter baloney. The Bush appearance aboard the Lincoln was a cynically
arranged propaganda show, meant to pump up the President's image with the
lie that something of value to the U. S. had been accomplished in Iraq.

So what? Every politician from every party has done that since the
1800s. You make it sound like it is something unique to GWB or the
Republicans.

Matt

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Bob Noel" wrote:


Don't make the mistake of assuming that others are operating by
roughly the same motivations as us. Sometimes diplomacy will
work, but it requires that the other side is actually interested in
peace.

And that the other side's leadership is even rational. There is
considerable evidence that Kim Jong Il is nuts.



Yes, Jong Mentally Il is nuts.

So what do we do about it?

I'd say nothing as long as he causes us no harm. The Chinese, Japanese,
Russians, Koreans, etc. have much more to be worried about than we, at
least at present.

Matt

Matt

"AES" wrote "Yada Yada Yada"

Mercy! A national defense expert, here on the aviation newsgroup!
What-da-ya think, we'll have next?
--
Jim in NC