Mondale backs pre-emptive missile strike (against North Korean missile)

[deadparrot]

MINNEAPOLIS - Former Vice President Walter Mondale said Friday he supports a pre-emptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile, saying the U.S. should tell North Korea to dismantle the missile or "we are going to take it out."

"I think it would end the nuclear long-range dreams of this dangerous country," said Mondale, who was the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee and a former U.S. ambassador to Japan.

The tensions are over North Korea's apparent preparations to test-fire a Taepodong-2 missile, which is believed to have a range of up to 9,300 miles. That would make it capable of hitting much of the U.S. mainland.

Mondale, 78, said North Korea already has nuclear weapons and its ambition to develop a long-range missile is "one of the most dangerous developments in recent history." It's so dangerous, he said, because of the nation's isolation from the international community and its unpredictable leader, Kim Jong Il.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_re_us/north_korea_mondale

[ixion]

1. great, thanks, Walter

:eyes:

take it out... take it out??

That sounds exactly like something der chimpenfurher would say. :grr:

[lumpy]

21. Mondale has nothing to lose apparently.

He won't be around much longer. Some old people have an attitude like it's 'not their problem so let the chips fall where they may'. Disgusting

[saigon68]

50. Mondale needs to take his medications

And to think Raygun had a mental problem too

The guy is a fossil

[struggle4progress]

67. Maybe WM's just calling W's bluff: the Administration has a coordinated

"say different things to different people" strategy here: "Yikes! missile!" "Maybe missile .. maybe not ..." "We can shoot it down!" "We can't shoot it down" "Look out! They're ready to launch" "We don't think they'll launch."

I think the real point of the noise was to create a limited crisis and provide cover for Japan inking a Star Wars deal with the US. OK, ink's dry: the Administration then started backing off on the noise. That's a completely immoral strategy for selling weapons systems, and the only way to call them on it is to ask why they haven't taken out the missile. The real answer may simply be that there wasn't much truth to the missile story.

[paparush]

75. That's a good angle on this story...

[Virginia Dare]

2. Just a theory...

but maybe they're ratcheting up the rhetoric to get the chimp to pay attention. With his A.D.D., he's forgetting that there's a whack-job in Korea that needs to be dealt with. Talks obviously need to be opened again, and right now the moron seems to have them on ignore.

[lumpy]

22. Nothing new there about Bush.

He's the Tom Sawyer of politics. Let someone else paint the fence.

[brooklynite]

3. Another former candidate...

gearing up for a comeback?

[bluestateguy]

4. In contrast to what the Reagan campaign said in 1984

Mondale was not and never was a pacifist. Mondale supported the MX missile and the deployment of Pershing missiles into Europe. Michael Dukakis was probably more of a dove than Mondale ever was.

And if North Korea should decide to "test" their little toy by firing it across the Pacific Ocean, we would have every right to shoot it down. That is a far cry from invading their country, overthrowing their government, occupying their land and installing a puppet government.

[neverforget]

5. Shooting it down? With what? Our so-called missile defense system?

Maybe if NK put a homing beacon on the warhead, then we MIGHT hit it.

The only way we have any right to shoot it down is if it were to be targeted on the US. We shoot missiles into the ocean all the time, I think the NK have the right to do the same.

[saskatoon]

15. have the right to do the same

You sound like you have a lot of common sense, what you said was very logical. i applaud you.

[katinmn]

81. Maybe we should divert some billions from the migratory bird

surveillance program Bush set up to keep the bird flu pandemonium going.

[Biernuts]

77. Pre-emptive, however, means hitting it before it launches

Technology wise, it's much easier to strike a stationary target than to intercept it at mach 6.

The US could send a solo F-117 to take it out on the launch pad - and could probably make it look like a fueling accident, especially since North Korea would NEVER admit that ANY nation could pentrate its IADS (Integratd Air Defense System). The "Dear Leader" says they are impenatratable

The "right" to shoot down a missile over the Pacific? I'm not so sure. It's analogous to being able to sink a ship because it's outside everyone's territorial limit. It would be fair game while overflying Japan or any other country.

[BeFree]

6. Getting rid of it...

... on the ground would be best.

As a pacifist I see stopping this missile from ever flying as the best way to nip-in-the-bud certain future horrors. We would be nothing more than destroying a machine. Think of the human lives in the balance.

This one is a no-brainer. North Korea does not need such a dangerous weapon. Neither do we, and I wish we would destroy our's at the same time.

[jayfish]

8. Unintended Consequences Tend...

to befoul even the tidiest of plans.

Jay

[daleo]

16. I doubt you could destroy it on the ground without killing people

It is bound to be guarded, and there may well be research people in the near vicinity. When one of the Soviet launch vehicles exploded during the space race it killed some of their best scientists.

[lumpy]

20. What would be the response from N.Korea

if the US should blast a missile on Korea's sovereign soil? Bush knows all about 'sovereignty'. This is one of the most foolish ideas anyone could come up with. There is only only one way to handle this situation, come to an agreement with N.Korea involving the countries that have concern about this, S.Korea, China, Japan and members of the UN. It is Bushco's stubborn stance and 'or else' posturing that will bring more destruction and danger to us all.

[BeFree]

24. Certainly, I agree

The best way to get rid of the missile is to talk it to death.

But we don't do things that way anymore. If we are gonna have a defense budget that is over $500 billion, we are gonna use missiles to do the job, if talks fail. Talks which, as you note, with bush, are bound to fail.

But just maybe a threat like Mondale's might help the talkers win and take the decision out of bush's hands?

Besides, IIRC, we are still at war with NK. Many an American shed blood over there, some fifty years ago. It ain't over yet.

[lumpy]

23. Pacifists don't blow up machines sitting on

other peoples territory.

[BeFree]

25. If I see someone being threatened...

... by another, my pacifism takes second chair. NK having a nuke missile aimed at others is a threat. Japan is in their target hairs. How else do we defend Japan?

[daleo]

26. Same way as always

Massive retaliation after a nuclear strike, should that ever happen. It worked for 50 years.

[Art_from_Ark]

30. Speaking as someone living in Japan,

Ground Zero even, the best way to defend Japan would be to cool it with the saber rattling. We lived through the 1998 Taepodon missile launch because cooler heads prevailed, and North Korea actually settled down and started on the path to joining the world community, or at least, to losing its status as a world pariah. But in those days, there was a relatively sane and respected American leader who wasn't hell-bent on lighting fires in hot spots around the world.

If you launch a pre-emptive attack on North Korea, you also have to consider the China card. How would China react? Would they just sit back and passively watch as events unfolded? Or would they become aggressive, perhaps using that attack as a pretext to attacking Taiwan?

We should also keep this in mind-- Saddam was supposed to have weapons that could hit England in 45 minutes, and we know that was a bald-faced lie. Kim is reputed to have missiles that have a range of nearly 10,000 miles, but his longest demonstrated range is no more than 2000 miles, and his longest demonstrated accurate range is less than 100 miles.

[BeFree]

31. Good points, Ark

It may be true that the missile 'facts' aren't facts at all.

As for China taking the opportunity to move into Taiwan, what will we do if they ever do decide to make a military move? I think this is a separate issue.

The thing is that an NK missile must be defeated before it can leave the ground. That would be better all the way around. Maybe Japan needs to step up? What has Japan done recently, any ideas?

I do find myself in this curious position, but backed up by the idea that allowing NK a nuclear missile is as bad as allowing a mad man with a loaded gun to wander through a schoolyard. I would hope someone would take that gun away.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. I personally think that NK's talk is mostly bluster

His navy, which is composed in large part of old Soviet cast-offs and assorted WWII vintage rustbuckets, is a joke. He likes to play cat-and-mouse with Japan and South Korea, and occasionally gets his ship or submarine sunk as a result. And yet somehow he has the capability of developing a nuclear missile and firing it accurately to a target 9500 miles away? Excuse me for not believing this. Kim is enjoying his bit in the spotlight, even if it is as the world's villain, and will say anything to remain in that spotlight.

[daleo]

33. Your straight talk is refreshing. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

38. "As a pacifist"?

"As a pacifist" you are proposing an act of aggression. Odd stance for somebody claiming to be a pacifist.

We are free to destroy our missiles, and more importantly our nuclear weapons, at any time. In fact we have a treaty obligation to do so under the NPT. We are not free to decide that North Korea may not have a missile. We are not free to arrogantly decide that some other nation may not have a weapon that we ourselves possess thousands of.

[BeFree]

49. Less aggresion... more defensive

We should destroy our missiles, but the reality of why we have them needs to be considered.

It is an odd stance I take. But it is rooted in the reality that if we don't do something now, the consequences could be great. I go no further than to say: Destroy the machine.

If talks fail, and NK goes further with such an agressive move, defense is demanded.

Why does NK need such a missile? China protects NK, NK does not need such an offensive weapon. We have not invaded NK, and our presence in the region is keeping the peace. Lets not let peace be destroyed by a rogue madman, as we have allowed here.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Why does NK need such a missile?

Mainly because we keep threatening to invade and destroy them and keep denying their sovereignty. They need such a missile just so the cost of our belligerance would be unacceptable and we would have no choice but to treat them as equals. And no, they cannot count on China to defend them.

"such an agressive move"? Building and testing a missile is not an aggressive move. By your logic the other nations of this planet would be entirely justified were they to attack and destroy our missiles and nuclear capabilities.

[ButterflyBlood]

54. They began work on this in 1998

Before Bush.

Also, there is no reason at all for the US to invade North Korea. There is no oil or anything of value there and nothing to be gained.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Yes and we have treated North Korea as a pariah nation

since the end of hostilities 50 years ago. Oddly enough, they are very paranoid about our intentions. 35,000 soldiers camped on your border backed by the planet's premier conventional and nuclear force might just make you a bit on the paranoid side too. Busholini declaring the north part of his fictional axis of evil, all slated for the iron fist of regime change by shock and awe certainly accelerated their efforts, convincing them to walk away from the NPT and go for a credible deterrent. This missile test is direct blowback from the whole mess the bush gang started. Those of you advocating military action here are requesting that tens of thousands more get added to bush's butcher bill. No thanks.

[Deja Q]

66. We're all to be butchered.

Offshoring, gas and oil prices going up, gutting the Constitution, encouraging us to enlist. I could name any quantity of examples.

[Deja Q]

65. Pacifism works ONLY when everybody else is - please read this.

I'm sorry, but we cannot sit back on this.

As a child, I was a pacifist. And the neighborhood kids terrorized me time and again. Kids at school terrorized me time and again. Even when getting sick of it, I remained compliant - all I did was go to the principal, who didn't give a fuck. The kids kept hurting me.

We need to stop NK so that the other countries don't have to feel terrorized all the time. Too many lives will be hurt if bullies are allowed to continue.

Pacficism is tolerance for bullies and the ilk. And with 6 billion people on this sodding planet, we have to defend ourselves at some point. Or let them nuke us. And I don't like that idea; there's a lot left in life TO discover. And I want to live it.

[ronnie624]

72. It isn't North Korea that terrorizes you.

It's the propaganda.

A rational examination of the history of North Korea will reveal that this country has never attacked nor even threatened anyone.

~~~~~~~~~~

If North Korea insanely attacked, the South Koreans would fight on mountainous and urban terrain which heavily favors defense, and complete air superiority would shoot up anything the North Koreans put on the road. Assuming the North Koreans could start up a thousand of their old tanks and armored vehicles, they cannot advance through the mountainous DMZ. The South Koreans have fortified, mined, and physically blocked all avenues through these mountains, and it would take North Korean infantry and engineers weeks to clear road paths while under fire.

The North Korean military could gain a few thousand meters with human wave assaults into minefields and concrete fortifications. However, these attacks would bog down from heavy casualties, and a lack of food and ammo resupply. Fighting would be bloody as thousands of South Korean and American troops and civilians suffer from North Korean artillery and commando attacks. Nevertheless, the North Korean army would be unable to breakthrough or move supplies forward. Even if North Korea magically broke through, all military analysts scoff at the idea that the North Koreans could bridge large rivers or move tons of supplies forward while under attack from American airpower.
<http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm>

~~~~~~~~~~

Talk of North Korea attacking the U.S. with nuclear weapons is delusional nonsense and paranoia. Surely the proof of behavior is in one's actions. What specifically in the short history of North Korea would lead you to believe they would attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons? Such a course of action would most certainly lead to the annihilation of North Korea as a nation state. I don't believe the government would commit national suicide.

Here is an interesting article on this subject:

Idea of strike on North Korea missile assailed as overkill
Clinton-era officials' suggestion 'pours gasoline on the fire'

"I have a lot of respect for both of those guys, and I was really surprised" by the essay, said Daniel A. Pinkston, a Korea specialist at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey. "My jaw practically hit the floor."

<snip>

Perry and Carter have their supporters, most notably former Vice President Walter Mondale, who said Friday he supports a pre-emptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile. He said the Bush administration should tell North Korea to dismantle the missile or "we are going to take it out."

But Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Stephen Hadley have both rejected that approach, and a number of analysts, in print and in interviews, chastised Perry and Carter for minimizing the risk of even suggesting such a tactic.

"They have poured gasoline on the fire, because they have put use of force on the table when a week ago it was unthinkable," said John Pike, founder of the private think tank globalsecurity.org.

<snip>

Former U.N. chief weapons inspector David Kay, now a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, called Perry's proposal bizarre.

"If I did not know Bill Perry, I would say that here go the Democrats posturing on a national security issue ... advocating an imaginary, strong action that they know is impossible for the administration to take," Kay said. "Maybe it's just seller's remorse at not taking on the North when they had a chance (during the Clinton years). Whatever the reason, it's the wrong policy."

Kay argued that real stability on the Korean peninsula requires fundamental change in the North -- wrought not through the stick of military action, but through the carrot of diplomacy, even if that requires some pretty big carrots.
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/25/MNGV0JK54T1.DTL>

[ckramer]

7. The 78 year old is not thinking clearly

This is not a XBOX video game for crying out loud.

[Metta]

9. A dangerous statement from a former friend.

Too much Kool-Aid, Walter? Here, throw up in George Bush's hat. That's better.

[flaminbats]

10. nothing wrong with starting a war!

nuking every country that dares to have the same weapons we do is the only way to build a world empire. Why should North Korea wish to remain an independent country?

If Kim Jong Il is considered too unpredictable to lead where does that put Bush? An unprovoked attack or invasion of South Korea might justify a nuclear strike, but not the development of nuclear weapons.

[Sapere aude]

11. Walter, suppose we propose a reduction in nuclear weapons on all sides and

have verifiable treaties. Now there is a blast from the past!

[Disturbed]

14. If this missle site was bombed it would be an act of War.

How would NK respond to that?

[last1standing]

12. Once again, some people here are having trouble separating

bush* from the United States. No matter what kind of nutjobs we have running this country right now, it's not a good thing for other nutjobs to have the capability of wiping out a major US city with a nuclear strike. As far as I read, Mondale said nothing about attacking North Korea with a nuclear weapon. It sounds to me like he's advocating a conventional weapons strike to stop an extremely unpredictable leader from having the means to extort or cripple just about any other country on the planet.

I know bush* is batshit crazy, but I don't want to die in a nuclear holocaust just because of that. Some people here really need to get their facts and priorities straight.

[daleo]

17. Plenty of people can wipe out a U.S. city right now

The leadership of Russia and China could both do it tomorrow. So could Britain and France for that matter, although it seems doubtful they would want to in our lifetime. I imagine India could manage the trick if they really tried, and maybe Pakistan too. Might as well throw Israel in that category, as well.

In every case it would be suicidal, as it would be for North Korea to attack the U.S.

[BeFree]

19. It ain't us...

..really, the Japanese are the ones in danger. NK and Japan have fought many battles over the centuries.

If NK can attack Japan with a nuke, it would have to be done with a missile. And the crazy bastard in NK might just do it if allowed a delivery system.

Too, there remains a matter that is not often mentioned, but I do believe it to be true: The US is still at war, technically, with NK.

[daleo]

27. The U.S. could strike back, massively, after an attack

I suspect Japan is far from powerless though.

Yes, Japan and Korea have fought. In fact Japan invaded Korea and occupied it during the 20th century. So, if anything North Korea has good reason to want to defend itself from Japan.

[BeFree]

28. Massively?

Yes. That is the fear. We can work around that with one surgical strike, and forget about all the massive shit, one would hope.

[daleo]

34. Massive retaliation is how the psychology of MAD works

Of course, it is a relative term. It was coined for the Soviet-U.S. standoff, so massive meant massive. In a N.K.-U.S. war, N.K. would use up its handful of weapons rather quickly, so the U.S. massive might not have to be very massive in reality.

It is the threat that counts in game theory, though. The idea is that the realistic threat of massive retaliation will prevent war, and it worked for 50 years with a far more frightening enemy (the U.S.S.R.). It works all that much better with a minor threat like North Korea.

And I don't buy the idea that Il Jong is a madman or that he is not within the realm of rational behavior. If North Korea was irrational, there would never have been a 50 year peace since the Korean war ended. This scare-mongering works on our irrationality, not his.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Try getting your facts straight first.

North Korea already has a tested delivery system that can hit Japanese cities. This missile enhances that capability by giving them a 9,000 mile range - they can hit our cities.

North Korea has had the capacity to strike Japan for something like two years, and oddly enough, despite assertions here that they are unpredictable and that their leader is a deranged nutjob, they have not gone out and committed suicide by nuking Japan.

[Art_from_Ark]

78. Straight facts

North Korea has never shown accuracy beyond a few tens of kilometers. Sure, they lobbed a missile over Japan in 1998, but there was nothing to indicate that they had any accuracy with that launch. They might have the ability to aim a missile at Tokyo, but there is no evidence that they would actually be able to hit the city.

The missile test a couple of years ago only confirmed that North Korea could fire a missile with an accurate range of 60 kilometers. Close enough to hit Seoul, perhaps, but not Japan. And certainly not the US.

[last1standing]

29. So which city would you like to see go first?

New York? LA? Maybe Chicago? The difference between any of the countries you named and North Korea is that they all have sane leaders. Kim Il Jong has shown his willingness to take brinkmanship to it's outer limit, then step over the edge. Yes it would be suicide, but Kim is the kind of nutjob who would be willing to kill his country just to prove a point. Maybe living in Canada you feel safe from these threats and are willing to lose a U.S. city or two, but you're not. If N.K. launches a missile, you can kiss your ass goodbye same as me and everyone else on this planet. Once the U.S. fires back, China and Russia will have no choice but to respond as they will have no idea whether the nukes are headed for Pyongyang, Beijing, or Moscow. Do you think they're going to take W's word for where they're going?

This is not a partisan issue and it's not something to hope bush* fucks up on. We need solid, experienced handling of this problem before we end up with a Strangelove ending. There is no more important issue on earth right now than making sure Kim is unable to terrorize the rest of the world with annihilation.

[daleo]

36. If Il Jong was irrational, he would have caused a war already

It is up to you to prove your claims about his irrationality. So far, the western (U.S. if you like) media has based his assumed insanity on an odd hairdo.

Vancouver and Edmonton are just as much within his missiles range as Seattle or Denver. If he is really as irrational as you claim, he would be just as likely to hit those cities as any in the U.S. (after all, he hates Canadian freedom too). So my opinions are not based on some idea that the U.S. would suffer and I would go la-di-da.

You are saying that the U.S. should attack N.K. pre-emptively, because that would make China less likely to escalate, than not attacking North Korea at all? China is next door to North Korea. The last time the U.S. attacked North Korea, China entered the war, and in a big way. Why do you think that wouldn't happen again?

If anything it would be more likely to happen because China is relatively more powerful than they were in the 1950's. During the first Korean War the U.S. had nuclear arms and the Chinese didn't. Yet the Chinese went to war with the U.S. anyway (and Canadian troops were involved too). Imagine what they might do now.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. "Kim Il Jong has shown his willingness to take brinkmanship"

You mean like he did in the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or perhaps the 73 middle east crisis? The blockade of Berlin? MacArthur's proposed invasion of China? Our offer to nuke Dien Bien Phu in 56? The Suez Canal Crisis? The 73, 79, and 84 and 95 false alarm near death experiences? I hadn't realized that Kim's reach was so broad and sweeping.

The fact of the matter is that nuclear nations end up deciding (at least since '61 when MAD became a fact of life) that suicide is not a good deal and so they decide to not use their nuclear weapons. North Korea, despite the propaganda, is a pathetic dreary stalinist dictatorship that will eventually wither away through the diligent efforts of the good people of South Korea to engage and normalize relationships with their cousins to the North. If would we just stop getting all over them with our threats and belligerence we would facilitate the gentle demise of the regime without anyone having to die over it.

[rooboy]

59. You'd obviously like to see Seoul go first. n/t

[Pale Blue Dot]

37. You know, Pakistan or India could be taken over by military coups tomorrow

Let's just bomb the hell out of them now, so we have nothing to worry about, OK?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. "an extremely unpredictable leader" "a nutjob"

There is no evidence that Kim is extremely unpredictable or a nutjob. In fact the North Korean government has been drearily predictable as has Kim, and has acted as a typical stalinist 'inward facing' late stage communist dictatorship.

"a conventional weapons strike" on the North could very easily trigger a massive retaliation on the south, in particular it is generally thought that North Korea could reduce Seoul to rubble with a conventional military strike within a very short time frame with massive casulties, including 35,000 US troops. Those troops are fondly referred to as 'the speed bump'. North Korea has the capability to hit Japan right now with nuclear missiles. Perhaps you want to rethink this theory of a 'surgical strike' against a regime that seems hell bent on doing nothing more than preventing its being wiped out by our demonstrably dangerous and aggressive regime.

[LoZoccolo]

46. Agreed.

Part of my objection to the Iraq war was that it would compromise our readiness and allow for things like what's happening in North Korea.

[Mountainman]

47. Some peple like you, I take it.

Any country has just as much right to build the same weapons we build. Suppose some country decided it was in it's interest to take out our missles? Are you for that too?

You know as well as I do that it would be suicide for Korea to launch a missle at us. Perhaps they are building a defensive weapon.

[shadowknows69]

13. Yeah thanks Walt . Please STFU.

n/t

[RCinBrooklyn]

18. After saying that, he wet his pants, rolled over, and went back to sleep.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

35. former ambassador to Japan

just saying. . . he has experience in the region

[daleo]

42. When exactly was that? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

43. He was 93 - 97 under Clinton.

but that doesn't mean he knows anything about either Japan or Korea. The appointment, like most high profile ambassador positions, was political it was not based on his regional expertise.

The poster made an appeal to authority - not exactly a valid argument.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

[daleo]

44. And 93-97 is long after the Korean War

Which is the closest historical analogy to this missile firing, as far as I can tell.

[Zynx]

48. And the situations were reversed. North Korea invaded unprovoked.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Not that simple.

Korea was hardly well defined as North Korea/South Korea - that division was a political arrangement between competing super powers and not an arrangement determined by the Korean people. Yhe Korean War was a civil war vastly complicated by the emerging cold war relations between the US and the USSR.

Since then, and over the last 15-20 years the Korean people seem to be hell bent on slowly, peacefully, reintegrating their divided nation, despite our best efforts or the efforts of the dismal stalinist regime in the North. Peace would be best served by our normalization of relations with North Korea and encouragement of the efforts by the south to engage with and peacefully transform the north.

[lumpy]

53. Truly WS

We have seen efforts, through the years, by the two Koreas to reconcile. The Korean people want that; after all they are one people. The US has come between their efforts in fear that we will lose a power base. These tangled relationships could be handled by UN Western powers using dialogue and diplomacy. Unfortunalty the USright and their allies refuse to have faith in UN abilities to defuse differences. The US has been the weak link in the UN ability to bring nations to the bargaining table. Ironically the US is losing the power struggle by diminishing it's military strength by using aggressive military tactics. Iraq and Afghanistan have proved that.

[ButterflyBlood]

55. It was still an unprovoked invasion.

North and South Korea were formally divided in 1948, before the war. And Kim's father acted on his own in invading, he asked the Soviets and they told him to lay off. He ignored them and invaded anyway.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. "formally divided in 1948"

as I said, this division was the work of the two super powers, the Koreans were not consulted, and viewing the Korean war as a simple invasion of one nation by another is a rather simplistic misreading of the history. It was essentially a civil war, complicated by its also being the first of many proxy conflicts between the two sides of the cold war.

[Zynx]

62. It was an aggressive action by the North regardless of how you want

to split hairs about the language.

[Zynx]

61. It was an effort by the expansionist North to unite Korea under a

Stalinist regime.

[ronnie624]

74. "expansionist North"?

As Korea was under complete dominance by two different occupying forces when the division took place, I think it is safe to assume that neither "North Korea" nor "South Korea" had any say in their political destinies. The so called Korean War was really just one more proxy war between the two dominant imperialist powers of the day; the Soviet Union and the United States. Considering this over-arching fact, it makes little sense to attribute to North Korea the current geopolitical situation on the Korean peninsula.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. Yes but it is much easier.

Then we can have 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and Kim can be a 'dangerous unpredictable nutjob' and the rationalization of committing another unjustified act of aggression is well on the way.

[Zynx]

80. Kim Il-Sung may have been advised by Stalin, but he still believed in

uniting Korea under Communist rule by force. Regardless, the United States did the right thing. Compare North Korea to South Korea today. "Nuff said. All this historical revisionism about how they were going to unite so smoothly is a whole lot of wishful thinking and usually aimed at undermining Truman's legacy unfairly.

[Matriot]

45. We can't afford a war

We're so broke the military is saying that people won't be able to PCS (Permanent Change of Station) from Korea after their year tour because, we're broke. They're even talking of stopping payment of bonuses. We're so broke we can't get vehicle parts, med supplies, office supplies. We were never here to defend from war. We're here with crappy equipment and inadequate personnel so that when N. Korea ever attacks we get killed, upsets Americans and gives the excuse to go to war. It's called a trip wire. You know like 9/11? Enrage the American population so we go and invade and spread our world power. Oops let's not forget the corporations get a little some some everytime we fight.

[liberalpragmatist]

56. Probably a bad idea, but I get the idea that most DU'ers don't care...

... about nuclear proliferation or are willing to use military force in any context.

Granted, I don't think any of us have any confidence that the Bush administration is going to do this competently, so probably better not to do it at all. But I do have to say, destroying their missile might be a good idea in theory - I don't know enough about the situation to have a definite yes or no to it.

But constantly on this site, whenever a Democrat says force might be necessary in some instance of countering a threat to the US, they're hounded and declared enablers or neocons, no matter what their credentials or viewpoint.

[daleo]

60. If the U.S. did destroy this missile, they would build another, in a more

secure site.

I guess they generate some money by selling missiles internationally, so this test has commercial as well as military purposes.

[Vinca]

63. On the other hand, Walt,

considering their leader is batshit crazy he might just fire up another (nontest) rocket with a bona fide warhead.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Despite funny haircut and southpark parody

there really is no evidence that Kim is 'batshit crazy'. Instead he appears to be a typical late stalinist tyrant, ruling a massively dreary classic totalitarian system, and the actions of North Korea seem to be quite rational, motivated entirely by their desire to protect their nation and the regime from hostile foreign powers.

[Deja Q]

64. I agree with him. NK has already said the US doesn't have a monopoly on

pre-emptive action. Jong has shown on countless occasions he is unpredictable. And that is dangerous.

What do we do, sit around and get nuked like this morning's breakfast?! Anyone suggesting we do nothing is a suicidal fool.

Of course, all of this could be a bluff... but why a bluff? The International Community damn well knows NK is a threat.

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

71. His Shrubness aint exactly predictable either

Does that give every other nation on earth the right to be all preemptive on HIS country's ass?

[Clarkie1]

68. It's an idea worth serious consideration. nt

[PaulaFarrell]

69. and then serious rejection n/t

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

70. true that n/t

[fujiyama]

76. Complex issue

and exactly the kind of situation where Bush being in charge really worries me.

One or more of the following will occur:

Bush will use this as an excuse to pour several billion dollars into a missile defense system that is of dubious value.

Japan will step up its own military, including a possible nuclear deterrence.

The US can open talks immediately to try to stop them from acheiving the capability to hit us.

Some statements I've read here are absolutely idiotic and nonsensical. Some are typical "NK is a victim" BS. Some even say that we should wait until Japan is attacked until we do something. Talks do need to be stepped up, and yes that will likely include going to DIRECT talks, which the administration is arrogantly refusing. But I don't think we should be willing to sit back until they build a system capable of hitting of hitting the west coast. If NK is unwilling to compromise at some point, I think military action should be a consideration. Now, I know the Bush administration doesn't really give a shit about the west coast, but contrary to what O'Reilly might think, SF and LA are US cities and we should do what we can to protect them.

People can sit around and play moral equivalence games all day long but Bush will be gone in a little more than two years. Kim Jong Il will likely still be in power and someone will need to deal with him. However, all hope need not be lost. While Il isn't completely rational, it's clear that his regime can bargained with, somewhat. With a sane leader in Clinton, we were able to avert them testing any more missiles from '98 until now. While the situation now is quite different (after all NK is now nuclear capable), I think we can still avoid using military force just yet.

[noonwitch]

82. We should shoot their missle down-NK does not need to have nukes

Shooting down their test missle should give them a disincentive to continue their nuke program.

[Nihil]

83. Hah! If only ...!

I have no doubt that the US forces can make a real mess of the
launch site but intercepting a real missile on an unknown course
at normal speed and without a homing beacon ...?

The best they can do is wait for it to hit the ocean and claim
a kill according to their usual "might makes right" protocols
(i.e., he who shouts loudest wins).