Skip to comments.
Bush administration faces wide choices, none guaranteed to offset nuclear threat
AP ^
| 12/25/02 1:28 AM
| BARRY SCHWEID
Posted on 12/25/2002 7:11:30 PM PST by FourPeas
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
1
posted on
12/25/2002 7:11:30 PM PST
by
FourPeas
To: FourPeas
No one can be 100% sure of no nuke threat.
2
posted on
12/25/2002 7:19:15 PM PST
by
dalebert
To: FourPeas
This is a fairly good analysis until we get to the mandatory final sentence zinger.
3
posted on
12/25/2002 7:23:30 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: FourPeas
Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan. This describes Clinton's foreign policy and his personal conduct all in a nutshell: What's the big deal? Everybody does it!
To: FourPeas
The Bush administration should restate the the US policy on nuclear weapons falling on American soil is still mutual assured destruction. If the other side is unable to assure the destruction of the US, that is their problem but we should fire enough of our arsenal to assure their total destruction.
To: Question_Assumptions
If the other side is unable to assure the destruction of the US, that is their problem but we should fire enough of our arsenal to assure their total destruction.There's a good chance the first nuclear strike on American soil will be delivered via common carrier from an unidentifiable shipper. So who do we totally destroy? Federal Express maybe?
6
posted on
12/25/2002 7:45:25 PM PST
by
templar
To: FourPeas
"Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction. "
I think this article is typical liberal bias BS. They quote two Clintonoids who are in part responsible for this potential disaster. Even the most intellectual honest individuals will instinctively go into CYA mode.
The mainstream media is as usual amnestic in regards to the genesis of this crisis. Another gift from the feckless foreign policy team of Clinton and company.
7
posted on
12/25/2002 7:49:01 PM PST
by
Maynerd
To: FourPeas
Wipe out the reactor. Then, we know for sure. No "deal" can be trusted with Kim Jong Il, as they mean nothing to him. He understands only force. Appeasement will bring war and more death later.
8
posted on
12/25/2002 7:55:30 PM PST
by
tomahawk
To: tomahawk
I agree totally. The North Koreans need to be told in no uncertain terms that they can threaten the U.S. and her allies with war but if they take that step their country will be nuked into oblivion. Come across the DMZ and cease to exist.
9
posted on
12/25/2002 8:15:42 PM PST
by
Ruger1099
To: templar
So who do we totally destroy?I would bet that whatever group that managed to plan, deliver and execute a plan against American interests, will not be able to contain their shear joy. In fact the main problem with an attack is not finding someone to take credit for it, but to sift out the one that actually did from the inflated number of groups claiming they did it.
10
posted on
12/25/2002 8:28:59 PM PST
by
VetoBill
To: tomahawk
One problem wiht that is you don't know how much you are destroying. One thing we know about the NK's is that they love to dig. They have some of the most complex underground defense facilities in the world.
What is frustrating about the news coverage on North Korea is that none of the news services why we cut off the oil shipments. North Korea admitted that they had been in violation of the 1994 treaties the entire time. All they wanted was a couple of light water reactors...and all Hitler wanted was a small piece of Czechoslovakia.
To: FourPeas
What do you mean there is no way to definitely eliminate the nuclear threat??
I would say sending a dozen Hiroshima bombs on N. Korea at the same time would do the trick.
To: FourPeas; CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; one_particular_harbour; kmiller1k; ...
Wendy Sherman, special adviser on North Korea policy to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said one option is a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. attack on Pyongyang. That probably would start a war with catastrophic consequences for hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, she said. Or, Sherman said, the administration could try to contain North Korea to keep it from "going over the edge."
Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan.
Sherman agrees with Einhorn that full-fledged negotiations is an option that must be considered. She suggested they could be conducted even in secret, if necessary, to stop the crisis from escalating.
Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction.
Wendy Sherman shall not remain a faceless Clintonista liar. She is a partner in crime with Clinton, Carter, and Albright in allowing the North Korean nuclear situation to fester. In fact, the Democrats rewarded Kim Jong Il by giving him two light water nuclear reactors to stop his weapons program.
Gee, why didn't that work Ms Sherman?.
To: FourPeas
Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction. Gee, no mention of 8 years of Clinton basically giving them the go ahead and having us pay for it?
14
posted on
12/25/2002 8:55:11 PM PST
by
SAMWolf
To: FourPeas
Wendy Sherman, SPECIAL ADVISOR on North Korea policy to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said one option is a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. attack on Pyongyang. That probably would start a war with catastrophic consequences for hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, she said. Or, Sherman said, the administration could try to contain North Korea to keep it from "going over the edge."
Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan.
Sherman agrees with Einhorn that full-fledged negotiations is an option, that must be considered. She suggested they could be conducted even in secret, if necessary, to stop the crisis from escalating.
Is this person an analyst or an advisor?
To: Sabertooth
Wendy Sherman shall not remain a faceless Clintonista liar. She is a partner in crime with Clinton, Carter, and Albright in allowing the North Korean nuclear situation to fester. In fact, the Democrats rewarded Kim Jong Il by giving him two light water nuclear reactors to stop his weapons program.
Exactly!
To: Sabertooth
Saber,
That is not the Hillary!, Cindy McCain, Albright, Pelosi, Landieu secret-feminist-club-pin she is wearing. What is it?
Here, I'll try to get a close up:
17
posted on
12/25/2002 9:33:33 PM PST
by
SkyPilot
To: Woodstock
Is this person an analyst or an advisor?
She's Clinton damage control.
To: SkyPilot
I was sure those were the wings of the Flying Monkeys from the Wizard of OZ.
To: FourPeas
What is this new term "full-fledged negotiations"? And why would we bother to negotiate anything with guys who signed Clinton and Carter's "historic agreement" and then proceeded to go right ahead and make nuclear bombs anyway? What good is an "agreement" with such people? OK, so Clinton and Carter got snookered. That doesn't mean we have to fall for it again. Kim Jong-Il is like Saddam Hussein in that he cannot be pressured with sanctions and whatnot, because he does not care if his people starve. They're already starving, and he spends his money on weapons programs anyway, just like Hussein does. I don't think we're going to be going through the UN on this one. This is the kind of thing that you fix in the dead of night, by surprise. The challenge is to make sure that you get enough of the leadership that whoever has the bombs doesn't know for sure what to do. It all has to happen realQuick, and completely by surprise. |
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson