Skip to comments.
North Korea: Diplomacy Hits the Wall (possible N.K. missile tests 5-8 days after Iraq war starts)
NEWSWEEK via independent.co.kr ^
| Feb 10, 2003 (publishing date)
| Richard Wolffe
Posted on 02/02/2003 9:39:01 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
Edited on 02/02/2003 9:46:41 PM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
Feb. 10 issue For the Bush administration, the worsening nuclear crisis in North Korea is turning into an exercise in frustration. For years conservatives inside the administration have longed to face down the Stalinist state. But now that they have a cast-iron case satellite pictures show the North is moving its stockpile of nuclear fuel rods they can only shrug their shoulders.
TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; missile; nkorea; skorea
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
An interesting time we live in !
To: TigerLikesRooster
If a country is hellbent on developing nuclear weapons, says one official, what can you do? Nuke 'em back to the Cretaceous Period?
To: TigerLikesRooster
But now that they have a cast-iron case satellite pictures show the North is moving its stockpile of nuclear fuel rods they can only shrug their shoulders. That's what you think, gaijin. Bush has quietly slipped the noose over North Korea's head and tied the other end off to the roof of the United Nations. All we have to do now is wait. We can't stop them from starting to build nuclear weapons, but we can put them in such a bad position that they'll wish they never started. U.N. sanctions are coming, the same ones that NK threatened to declare war over. Bush aims to strangle the regime, using their own bellicosity against them in the civilized forum of the U.N.
Strategery.
(What I'd really love to see is a ballistic missile defense test that 'coincides' with the NK missile test.)
To: Steel Wolf
(What I'd really love to see is a ballistic missile defense test that 'coincides' with the NK missile test.) Perhaps that could actually be within the realm of possibility. It would sure tickle my fancy.
To: Steel Wolf
RE #3
I did not post this article because I agree with the author 100%. If you have a beef with this article, bring it to Richard Wolffe.:)
The reason I picked this article is that it is the first media piece to mention a possible N.K. missile test at the onset of Iraq war.
To: TigerLikesRooster
I still think Soddamn is paying NK to cause as much trouble as possible.
6
posted on
02/02/2003 10:15:09 PM PST
by
Let's Roll
(Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.)
To: TigerLikesRooster
Hehe, I realize that it wasn't you who wrote it. My response was to the article itself. Anytime you post something you have to expect some idiot to post 'to you' when he is actually replying to the article.
To: TigerLikesRooster
The NK's keep raising the ante'. What does this tell you about where we are going here?
To: LibWhacker
as a rule I disdain nukes , except wednesdays , of course.
but I'd nuke the N Koreans in nine seconds if I could.
To: TigerLikesRooster
How many nukes can a sub hold? We could park one near NK and tell them if they pull anything they are done.
To: FreeCanuckistan
The NK's keep raising the ante'. What does this tell you about where we are going here?Well, we're not going anywhere ..... NK may go into the furnace soon if they keep this up.
Russians could be 'trusted' with nukes because while commies they were rational.
With China, they have too much $$ and face to lose (for now)
The US, Israel and Britain ... long time allies.
The French and India can be made to see that using them would be a very BAD idea. Once again, rational behavior.
Islamics and North Korea's nukes should be strangled in the cradle.
11
posted on
02/02/2003 10:28:54 PM PST
by
Centurion2000
(The question is not whether you're paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough.)
To: Brimack34
How many nukes can a sub hold? We could park one near NK and tell them if they pull anything they are done. IIRC, 24 D5 Tridents each with a possible 5 MIRV warhead collection. Each warhead can be upwards of 500kt to 1MT (once again IIRC). About 120 nukes ...
Now you could have an SSGN with 154 tactical nuclear Tomahawks as well.
12
posted on
02/02/2003 10:33:55 PM PST
by
Centurion2000
(The question is not whether you're paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough.)
To: Centurion2000
That's more or less where I figure we're going with this. You see....we gotta take it to em'.
To: Centurion2000
Russians could be 'trusted' with nukes because while commies they were rational. We really didn't have any choice but to trust the Russians from the early 1960's onward. We came darn close to blowing each other up on a few occasions. We are lucky it didn't come to that.
Dr. Evil over there in NK is acting rationally, in his own perverse way. He's gambling, that's for sure, but this is time to do it. It is obvious that the NK's don't believe that we can handle two large scale high intensity ground wars at the same time and probably believe that we wouldn't hit them with a pre-emptive nuke strike. A conventional strike that takes out their nuke facilities is very possible, but that entails a high degree of risk because Seoul is vulnerable to a counter-strike and they don't even have to get across the DMZ to do that. Sure, we take them out, but at what price? They are betting that we will cave before putting SK at risk. That may be a risky bet, but Kim may figure he's next, after Saddam, so he has little to lose in the end?
Any way you cut it, we are in a difficult position.
To: Let's Roll
or vice versa...
15
posted on
02/02/2003 11:56:23 PM PST
by
Robert_Paulson2
(clintonsgotusbytheballs?)
To: Norman Arbuthnot
So are they.
They cannot make good on their threat to the South without total destruction of the North.
The problematic questiuon is what happens if they continue their peace offensive with the now appeasment happy South while proceeding apace with crating and adding to a nuclear weapons inventory.
The 64 dollar queston is: "Will we allow it?"
I think we have to make it totally clear to BOTH Koreas that the answer to that question is a solid NO. NAd that any attemt to push the issue will result in a the military eliimination of the North's potential nuclear capability.
To: John Valentine
The 64 dollar queston is: "Will we allow it?"We will have no choice. Everyone seems to focus on Seoul and forget Japan. Wanna ponder what would happen to the global economy if a mushroom cloud blooms over Tokyo?
17
posted on
02/03/2003 12:49:22 AM PST
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: AntiGuv
I have to say that I find your response perplexing.
You seem to be saying that we must allow North Korea to develop nuclear weapons if we are to avoid a nuclear attack on Japan by North Korea.
Do I have that right?
To: AntiGuv
You're telling me. I live in Kyoto and have a feeling that Kyoto will go first. Kyoto defines Japan.
19
posted on
02/03/2003 12:56:18 AM PST
by
struggle
To: struggle
We should cooperate with Japan by announcing that no missile launch will be permitted from North Korea.
We can test our airborne laser in a real time scenario.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 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