Skip to comments.
Removal of Rods @ Nuke Plant Touches Off Increase of US Forces Near Korean Peninsula (Developing)
SBS TV (Korea), KBS TV (Korea) and a bunch of other sources in Korea and Japan ^
| 4 February 2003 (Asia Time)
| AmericanInTokyo
Posted on 02/03/2003 2:59:45 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-129 next last
To: AmericanInTokyo
thanks for your very informative posts! Doesn't NK have an extensive system of underground bunkers? Would they be paranoid/suicidal enough to attack? Maybe we need to offer the "all means necessary" speech pretty soon...
To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
...Will George Bush ever get a break? What next?
42
posted on
02/03/2003 3:49:40 PM PST
by
Nick Danger
(Heave la France)
To: AmericanInTokyo
Thanks for being here at FR. I've been following your posts now for some time. You have first hand knowledge over there, and I really have found your information top notch.
To: AmericanInTokyo
There are really only two possibilities here. One, that Kim Jong il is insane and has sincere militaristic designs on his neighbors and intends to continue his support of axis nations. Two, that he his using the removal of the rods as an upping of the ante to gain concessions on power plant aid and other payola.
If it is the former, you can bet that US, Japanese, Russian and Chinese intelligence have jointly determined as much. In that case, I would expect a devastating attack that would leave counter-attack capabilties essentially destroyed. North Korea would be jointly occupied.
If it is the latter, my sense is that Kim Jong il has badly overplayed his hand, probably because he cannot distinguish Bush from Clinton (remembering how easy and fun it was to snooker a U.S. President). That is a gross miscalculation. It is one thing to pressure concessions by implication--this allows for face-saving appeasement in certain circumstances. Any concession in the face of ecpressed threats is akin to negotiating with terrorists, which is anathema to US foreign policy and national security. In this instance, I think the build up is more show--W's way of saying "get back in line now."
The smart money is on the latter scenario. My bet is that the build up scares Kim Jong il back into his rabbit hole.
I am a hedger, though. If this clown does not back down at once, I believe that we will see Rumsfeld's two front campaign. And I wil bet the farm that both operations are over in less than six weeks. The only difference is that in the case of a Korean conflict, in light of the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ and the number of U.S. troops on active duty in the South, we are MUCH more likely to use tactical nuclear weapons to overwhelm the enemy.
44
posted on
02/03/2003 3:59:24 PM PST
by
Zebra
To: AmericanInTokyo
I'm not up on my "North Korean Politics," but what would happen if we left NK alone? I mean, seriously, why or why not would that be a good/bad idea?
45
posted on
02/03/2003 4:03:26 PM PST
by
realpatriot71
(legalize freedom!)
To: The Turbanator
"Good God. Will George Bush ever get a break? What next?"
Almost my exact thought when I first heard of the Columbia tragedy.
Next? How about that zany bunch in India and Pakistan? Or maybe some kooky former Soviet Republic trying to make a name for itself? How about a Turkish and/or Iranian land grab during the Iraq operation?
Wars and rumors of war........
46
posted on
02/03/2003 4:09:00 PM PST
by
Milwaukee_Guy
(Stop the Axis of Weasels!)
To: Zebra
Either way this is a bad time for the N. Koreans to start rattling sabers. We have our hads full with aphganistan and Iraq. Now Kim wants to start flexing muscles to see in my humble opinion exactly what we are willing to give him if'n he puts the plutonium back in safe storage.It is very very scaryKim and Saddam will brutally murder tens of thousands of their of countrymen and not bat an eyelash. we have reason to be worried.
To: unspun
Jimmy should have listened better to Amy.He was to busy lusting in his heart.
48
posted on
02/03/2003 4:25:55 PM PST
by
Spunky
To: realpatriot71
I'm not up on my "North Korean Politics," but what would happen if we left NK alone?They have been exporting scud missles. (see Yemen 2 months ago)
At a minimum they may have to be blockaded, sealed off, against exporting the fissionable stuff and that may provoke a reaction.
'03 will not be a calm year.
To: Semper Paratus
They would basically do the same as Saddam and not directly attack America or its interests, but rather supply someone who would? Is this the basic argument?
50
posted on
02/03/2003 4:39:50 PM PST
by
realpatriot71
(legalize freedom!)
To: realpatriot71
They would basically do the same as Saddam and not directly attack America or its interests, but rather supply someone who would? Is this the basic argument?Yes, except that they have 1 million fully mobilized forces at hair trigger next to 37,000 US and 300,000+ SK forces and enough artillery to destroy Seoul before a counter-strike.
To: Semper Paratus
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS AND OUR ALLIES
52
posted on
02/03/2003 4:50:54 PM PST
by
ATOMIC_PUNK
(The Fellowship of Conservatives)
To: Zebra
Thanks for your thoughts re: Post 44. I concur with your analysis.
53
posted on
02/03/2003 4:52:46 PM PST
by
LaGrone
To: AmericanInTokyo
Add me to the list of folks who appreciate your thoughtful posts. Thanks again.
54
posted on
02/03/2003 4:53:54 PM PST
by
LaGrone
To: Senator Pardek
Everybody Wang Chung tonight.,,, thanx a million. I lost my coffee and I've stained my shirt.
To: Semper Paratus
"except that they have 1 million fully mobilized forces at hair trigger next to 37,000 US and 300,000+ SK forces and enough artillery to destroy Seoul before a counter-strike"When I was stationed there we were briefed that they had over 1,000 long range tubes pointed at Seoul and every US base within 35 Km of the DMZ. Make no mistake these guys are for real and WILL commit cultural suicide to save face. We underestimate them at our peril.
"W" has got his hands full, he'll need our prayers and the dedicated duty and service of all our troops......
56
posted on
02/03/2003 5:12:11 PM PST
by
TominPA
To: Zebra
I agree fully with your analysis with one possible difference: I think we may use strategic nukes along with tactical ones.
I'd like to see us do something completely different than we are doing, however. Why not issue a warning to NK that any advance over the DMZ will be met with a full nuclear response, accompanied by a complete withdrawal of our forces there? Pulling our troops out shows that we will indeed nuke them - and we're getting out of the kill zone. Where to move our troops? Taiwan, where else. Check and mate for China - this would prevent them from trying Taiwan while we are in Iraq as well.
57
posted on
02/03/2003 5:12:17 PM PST
by
11B3
(China leads the Axis of Evil.)
To: 11B3
interesting .... but there is the rick that while we are withdrawing he will invade.
The rest of the world would see it as a retreat and you know that the media will spin it like that too.
58
posted on
02/03/2003 5:18:11 PM PST
by
Centurion2000
(The question is not whether you're paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough.)
To: AmericanInTokyo
Bumping...
59
posted on
02/03/2003 5:21:15 PM PST
by
redhead
To: AmericanInTokyo
AIT -- thanks for the update...
What seems to be the emotional level of alarm or threat for the Japanese people if any, and is there some hue and cry for it's leaders to lean on NK politically, if not militarily?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-129 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