N. Korea next to hear U.S. war drum : Invading North Korea and toppling its regime.
 

Boring news? Unlikely. This might get interesting in the next few months..

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...ry=north+korea

Beijing ? A senior Pentagon adviser has given details of a war strategy for invading North Korea and toppling its regime within 30 to 60 days, adding muscle to a lobbying campaign by U.S. hawks urging a pre-emptive military strike against Pyongyang's nuclear facilities.

Less than four months after the end of the Iraq war, the war drums in Washington have begun pounding again. A growing number of influential U.S. leaders are talking openly of military action against North Korea to destroy its nuclear-weapons program, and even those who prefer negotiations are warning of the mounting danger of war.

Some analysts predict that North Korea could test a nuclear warhead by the end of this year ? an event that could cross the "red line" that would provoke a U.S. attack.

The tensions were heightened by a recent exchange of gunfire across the border between North Korean and South Korean soldiers. Talks between U.S. and North Korean officials are expected to be held in Beijing soon, but nobody is predicting an imminent diplomatic agreement, especially after North Korea denounced a U.S. negotiator as a "bloodsucker" and "human scum." :)

Military conflict in the Korean peninsula could trigger a catastrophe, not only because of the suspected presence of nuclear bombs in North Korea, but also because of the 11,000 North Korean artillery weapons along the border that could inflict death and destruction on millions of people in the South Korean capital, Seoul, which is within artillery range of the North's guns.

Former CIA director James Woolsey, a Pentagon adviser and close ally of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, gave the most explicit glimpse into the thinking of U.S. military planners this week when he revealed the details of a possible plan of attack against North Korea.

The plan would include 4,000 daily air strikes against North Korean targets, the deployment of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy the Yongbyon nuclear plant and other nuclear facilities, the stationing of U.S. Marine forces off the coasts of North Korea to threaten a land attack on Pyongyang, the deployment of two additional U.S. Army divisions to bolster South Korean troops in a land offensive against North Korea, and the call-up of National Guard and Reserve units to replace U.S. combat forces that are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Massive air power is the key to being able both to destroy Yongbyon and to protect South Korea from attack by missile or artillery," Mr. Woolsey wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal in an article co-written by retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant-General Thomas McInerney.

"We believe the use of air power in such a war would be swifter and more devastating than it was in Iraq," the article said. "We judge that the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy."

Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney said the U.S. should already be preparing "to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime."

They acknowledged the risk that U.S. military strikes could trigger an explosion of radiation from North Korean nuclear plants, along with massive artillery attacks against Seoul by the North Korean heavy guns that are hidden in hardened underground bunkers on the border.

But U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft could launch precision bombing attacks that would "minimize radiation leakage" at Yongbyon, while also sealing shut the underground bunkers where the artillery pieces are hidden, they said.

They warned that a war could soon become necessary to prevent North Korea from selling weapons-grade plutonium to "rogue states" and terrorist organizations. "The world has weeks to months, at most, to deal with this issue, not months to years," Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney wrote.

Similar warnings were issued recently by William Perry, the former U.S. defence secretary, who said North Korea and the United States were drifting toward war ? perhaps as early as this year.

Mr. Perry said the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is "losing control" of the North Korean nuclear crisis, making it possible for Pyongyang to begin selling nuclear weapons to terrorists soon. "The nuclear program now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he told The Washington Post.

He said North Korea seems to have begun reprocessing some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods from a closed nuclear plant. This could allow Pyongyang to build up to six nuclear bombs in the next six months. "I have thought for some months that if the North Koreans moved toward processing," he said, "then we are on a path toward war."

US wants to liberate N. Korea????

I think the question is if China would just stand around and watch.

Two Words: Bad Plan

Three Words: VERY Bad Plan

:2 cents:

liberate them fuckers.

Sorry I didn't read your entire post but I think I know what you are talking about... and to be honest, who DIDN'T expect this?

When Bush marched into Iraq to finish off Daddy's dirty laundry we all asked why. He said 'Weapons of mass destruction, must go KILL!!' (ok, maybe I'm paraphrasing) but that was the reason. Then the war trudged forward and no WMD were found. Big surprise? Only sorta. Anyhoo, Bush starts going on about how 'We've liberated these people from a horrible man and his government' and fair enough it seems that the US did just that. BUT if you are going to justify the 'goings on' in Iraq with a 'We have to save the world and impose democracy on everyone' then you have to expect that N. Korea would be next in line. It is true to say that Bush may be a bit nervous about N. Korea having 'the bomb' as well, but then so do the French (among many others). After the US goes in and replays the Korean War (possibly this time with a US friendly ending) who will be next? China? Zimbabwe? Every other country in the world under a coercive dictatorship with capabilities of building nuclear weapons? Where does US jurisdiction end?



Don't get me wrong, I'm not communist, I'm not anti-democracy , I'm just anti-Bush (and all the other nutters out there like him who thinks it is better to blow people up than to try to resolve things peacefully).

Hey, Bush has many " contributors"...

If YOU had to find them all a job, you would also realize that Iraq is not enough.... so you " change regime" in N. Korea.

New job for a dear friend in Iraq:

Payback time!

Yea, lets talk peace with that leader of N. Korea. The guy is nuttier than a fruit cake.



People said all the same rhetoric about Reagan , how he was a war monger, leading us on a path of destruction etc, but he was right.

Bush is right too. But we live in a internet, reality tv age where people just dont have a grasp on reality.

Which countries in this new century have been implicated in a war???

Or which country threatens other of war ( under pre-emptive shit).

So please think before making statments...

fuck you

Yeah, that was sort of my point. Why go marching in to 'topple regimes' that aren't posing any immediate threat. If people want to use the argument 'Well, they are developing nuclear weapons and ONE DAY they MIGHT come after the US' then you might as well suit up and take the world on. One big happy Empire Of The United States... but then isn't that what Bush really wants? To rule the world??

how do you intend to make a peaceful resolve to this situation?

No way, those fools will just collapse themselves.

the only concern is how many nucs will they sell to people that hate us more BEFORE they collapse...

Stop alienating countries... Restore food and energy supply ( as it was before Bush "axis of evil" ) against a stop of military nuclear development and return of UN inspector...

Anyway, I am dreaming... Bush foreign policy is WAR.

Bushs foreign policy is to not back down and do the right thing. Not cut sweetheart deals like Clinton did with north korea.

Before posting, take this test... lol


http://www.liquidgeneration.com/thru...57rqjks1dsvyxz

PS: great answer but wrong...
Right answer : The US.

just when you think you're not going to be drafted and shipped off to some god forsaken shithole to die in a country you've never had a problem with, the oppourtunity presents itself again. god bless america.

Looks like Pandora's box has been opened..

i am going to display my ignorance here.

do we have nukes? i thought we did. if we do, why can we tell other countries not to? if we don't, excuse me for being grossly uninformed...

i just don't understand this aggression - if you discover your next door neighbor owns a big gun, and he and you are on bad terms, you aren't allowed to shoot him because he poses a potential threat.

i'd agree that bush doesn't have the best foreign policy, and i really don't like the idea of going to war again, especially there.

but, what other choices are there? nk doesn't want a thing to do with our peace talks. they are pretty outward about their hate against the US and the desire to crush the US. they're obtaining nuclear technology that they are most likely going to have little remorse in selling these items to groups that would use it against the US. they're even building delivery systems that could reach the US. if they weren't anticipating the need to launch nuclear weapons to the US, why would they be improving their current delivery systems to they can reach here? even using nukes in a defensive environment, most of NK's enemies that would be quickly mobile would not be that far away. to me this indicates the possibility of rising offensive.

they also seem to like to point out that the US and NK are still at war.

with these things in mind, and a country with a certifiable leader, what would be the options here? should we wait until a missile hits seattle? or someone sets off a nuke in LA? i don't think we should parade around the world taking over a bunch of countries. we aren't really doing that. but we do have a right to defend ourselves, just as other countries do. and, if we can make the world a little safer place at the same time, it's a perk.

NK scares me a lot more than iraq ever did.

in Texas I think they allow it ;)

:thumbsup

we're not exactly talking about a neighbor wielding an ak47.

the US has the discipline not to launch all of its ICBM's at another country. from the radicalism of their leadership and their outward hatred for the US, i would say it's somewhat plausible that they would at least be involved in seeing the US suffer more.

Get some help from other states and kill that regime.
You have what it takes to do it yourself but if something
bad happens, like in Tom Clancys book The presidental Order,
you need to have forces at home as well.

Italy has a big army - they can put people on the ground.
Their leader would not hesitate, he is an asshole mafia guy but you can use that.
If Blair still has power and not trying to suck up to keep his job they can help with special forces.

BUT Do IT NOW - don't sit and wait until their bombs are ready.
Do it !!

There is absolutely no Treath from N.Korea for US so all that
talk is bullshit. Do it for the people and keep on doing it with other regimes in the world.

You will get shit offcourse from alot of places but in the future you will be known as the country who made the world alot better for millions of people.

Start a new UN which only focus is to kill regimes not doing the best for their people.

And fuck all of you who say it's not your biz.
You can do it so therefor it is your biz.

Sorry to say that my country, Sweden, always is so political
correct and go with the flow.

It does??:eek7

Sorry, just taking another opportunity to be mean to ol' G Dubbya.

As much as I disagree with rooster on politics, this response did make me laugh.

I didn't agree with the way bush went about attacking Iraq... his political skills suck... and I don't think he is a good president.. but I do think N.K is a very major world problem and something has to be done... it's really not the fact that they will have nukes... hell a lot of countries have them... it's the fact that N.K will supply them to whom ever has enough money... and that is a major problem... we really have no choice but to attack N.K ... IMO we should have taken care of them before Iraq...

aren't we the only country that HAS dropped nuclear shit on another country?

yes, and we used pretty good discipline in administering such a device. it was also a good lesson to be learned by the world. do you see other countries these days nuking people for shits and giggles? do you see the US nuking other countries for shits and giggles. think about it for a minute. with all the checks and balances in place, it does make it a little bit difficult. for all of you out there that think bush is a renegade wild leader, he still has many to keep him in his place.

countries like NK are not a disciplined as the US. considering as much as they hate us, and as much as they want to do a lot of damage, how safe do you feel when they get that first bomb ready, and that first delivery system perfected that can reach the US?

If there was no pearl harbor there would have been no hiroshima. If in fact this is what your referring to in your post. The crack up is half you jerk-offs dont like Bush AND STILL DONT VOTE:321GFY

I admit my bias and also agree with you in part...but at the same time must be 'intellectually honest' enough to recognize how it may also be viewed as highly hypocritical...


akin to many parent's 'do as I say and not as I do' discussions

Maybe all you guys that said "That's inconsistent. Why Iraq and not North Korea?" will get your wish ;-)

North Korea. Not much oil there. What're the conspiracy rags going on about now anyhow? I haven't been updated.

< I vote like a motherfucker...if for no other reason to give me the right to bitch about the outcome...


nice nick by the way ;)


:thumbsup :thumbsup

I don't like Bush at all, but I'm all for dropping the hammer on that fuck in N Korea. I hope we smash that motherfucker and all of his weapons and let the people of that country unite with the South and prosper.

usually when I get into this 'preemptive' strike discussion and push for 'consistency' I like to insert "CHINA" ...

bottom line if it's a right policy it's a right/correct policy and should be applied where appropriate, not just to countries that we feel we can easily beat down...that's kinda pussy imo...

also kinda hypocritical...



if things are only right when and where we can win, I guess that changes the landscape for many social, political, legal environments...


:/



what is 'right' then...does it change based on if you'll not like the repercussions of taking actions based on the original definition?

it may be somewhat inconsistent. but would you rather have every crazy fuck in the world deploying nuclear devices wherever, whenever they pleased?

another thing to take note of is that _nobody_ knew the true power or afteraffects of nuclear war when the first bomb was dropped. this, is the lesson. at one point, with the technology developed, it's use was eventually imminent. i don't like the outcome, but glad it was used to end a war, not propogate one.

I disagree with you. Principled actions in world politics? Better to act in one's own interest. France, Russia, and China might have opposed the US action in Iraq but they didn't send troops to oppose it. Too costly.

Costs and benefits.

One would have to be certified to treat Afghanistan and China the same. They are not the same. They are not treated the same. They shouldn't be treated the same.

That's good. One MUST consider China's position in events in Asia.

I got nothing to say about North Korea/US relations... apart from they are foul. This can be solved by pretty "simple" common sense that involves *some* diplomacy - but there are no diplomatic skills available.

I also can't see any good in the comments from the US - tis the usual BS of this Admin - they rarely talk about peace, nevermind actually contribute to it. Peace is harder than bombing.

Does Bush need to be clad in some "commander-in-chief" clothing yet again, to sustain him in the upcoming elections??

There are contingency plans for virtually every country in the World. From time to time those plans are taken "off the shelf" and upgraded. In the case of some countries...those plans are constantly being upgraded and this is the case with North Korea. War games are played out against North Korea annually via computer models.

I have said it before and will say it again...if North Korea cannot be talked down then it will be taken down.

In my opinion it won't take 30 days to change regimes. The head dickfuck is an eccentric crazy mofo, when their radar screens light up like a fourth of July party, the generals will shit their pants and take him out with a coup, just to protect their own asses.

Just like Saddams bullshit that he had a loyal army. My ass, he had a bunch of yoyo's that couldn't wait for the US to come to Baghdad so they could dump that numnuts of a loser leader.

Same thing will go down in NK. I say 7 days max and they'll be flapping their white undies in the air to surrender.

Got 15/15 and it said I was like Joe Millionaire :(

Probably has to do with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The countries that didn't have nukes at the time it was signed are not supposed to be allowed to develop them. The ones that did have nukes are supposed to work on disarming instead of building more.

I love the political discussions here :)

You answered your own question.

:ugone2far :disgust

it won't happen

Its very simple, N Korea sells its Missles and missle technology to Arabs who want to either rule the world or blow it to bits.

The French and Chinesse and whoever can have as many nukes as they want as long as there not run by mad men, but N korea is and won't think twice about giving it to a Arab country who in turn could sell it to terrorists

But fuck me good luck getting all the military forces into and around S korea for the attack ready before N Korea notices and starts a pre-emptive war.

Nope it won't be that matey

1. North Korea has a 1 million man army (very well armed and trained) one of the largest and best trained in the world).

2. THEY ARE ALL FUCKING BRAIN WASHED and worship there leader like a god damn GOD. They have statues of him and love him. If you see some of their videos you'll see how badly brainwashed they are. He controls everything they learn and he has full control and they all pretty much hate America. (Fuck I was in S Korea in 1996 and the S Korea's fucking hate the Americans).

3. They have 1000's of hidden and mobile Artillary pieces that can fire Chemical & biological shells right into S Korea capitial Soul. (NOT GOOD).

4. If they have 1-3 nukes, they may of set it up on a plane ready to drop it on Soul as payback for any attack on it. Or maybe Japan. who knows.

5. We need to take out N korea before they become unstopable. They are the only country that could destablise the world peace by giving every nut country with oil a nuke & good missle technology to threaten everyone. We need the USA to be our protectors here but once the bad guys get nukes & missles that can hit the USA the whole thing changes.

I guess we'll see soon enough. I still think it will be short and sweet.

I just read we used MK77 bombs on the Iraqi Republican Guards. They sure kept that quiet.

For those that don't know MK77's are the US's only still active Napalm bombs. Each one delivers 750 lbs of a fiery mixture of benzene, gasoline and polystyrene. You're burned alive in essence and can't get the gel off you. Ultra nasty way to go and super demoralizing because the other troops see guys running around frantically completely on fire screaming til they drop.

:)