• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A simple solution to North Korea

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: fluxquantum
Originally posted by: jjsole
Kennedy stood up to the russian's, clinton didn't stand up to the intelligence that said north korea had a nuclear program. Its now or never and the situation will only get worse unless something is done about it.

i don't see bush standing up either. i would rather see him deal with north korea a.s.a.p. than deal with iraq at the moment.

The military is about to start moving more stuff there. Happy now?

yes, but that isn't deterring them from pursuing their nuke program. from what i have read the program is in full session.
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: tweakmm
The fundemental flaw in your idea is that there is no simple solutuion to the problem in North Korea for every action there is a reaction
Israel took the risk of war, so did kennedy. You've got to draw the line early.

Iraq's conventional army did not at that time pose an immediate threat to Israel, whereas Seoul would be more or less leveled under insane artillery fire. Instead of an attack, Kennedy initiated a naval blockade of Cuba, after which Kruschev backed down. Israel took a calculated risk, where the benefit (stopping Iraq's nuclear program) greatly outweighed the risks.

jjsole, I was under the impression that you were a Bush-hating, granola-eating, die-hard anti-war liberal. Was I mistaken, or are you trolling? I ask because your idea displays a remarkable lack of thought.
 
Send a few cruise missles to blow up the reactor(s) that will be used for the nuclear program, before they get going. Just bomb it, like Israel did to Iraq's nuclear program in the 80's. End of story and no unnecessary lives lost.
That's a terrible idea. We don't need to give North Korea an excuse to attack South Korea or Japan.
 
Why We Won't Invade North Korea
I agree that China is the x-factor. Would Bush have the guts to hit them where it counts and revoke their most favored trade status and even cut off trade with them, which would hurt our economy as well? I doubt it, but I agree with the author, when you talk about diplomacy, you're talking China.
 
The fact is that the DPRK's nuclear weapons are almost undoubtedly too large to be carried in any missile North Korea possesses at this stage, although it is possible that North Korea possesses missiles the West does not know about. The Rumsfeld Commission, charged with investigating the feasability and desirability of National Missile Defense, determined that the No-Dung was deployed long before the United States learned of it's existence. North Korean weaponry most likely consists of one or two "Fat Man" style bombs, of the type dropped on Nagasaki. The actual "Fat Man" was 10,300 pounds heavy and 60" x 128". While some sophisticated ICBMs are capable of carrying payloads in excess of that weight the North Korean No-Dung missile is only capable of carrying an approximately 2,552 pound payload. Their Taep'o Dong 1 is capable of an approximate payload of 2,205 pounds and is intended for satellite launches.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Iraq's conventional army did not at that time pose an immediate threat to Israel, whereas Seoul would be more or less leveled under insane artillery fire. Instead of an attack, Kennedy initiated a naval blockade of Cuba, after which Kruschev backed down. Israel took a calculated risk, where the benefit (stopping Iraq's nuclear program) greatly outweighed the risks. jjsole, I was under the impression that you were a Bush-hating, granola-eating, die-hard anti-war liberal. Was I mistaken, or are you trolling? I ask because your idea displays a remarkable lack of thought.

Bush-hating = yes

granola-eating = I have on occasion but its usually too overpriced and over-sweetened.

die-hard =

anti-war = every situation is different. Am I anxious to kill 150k men women and children in iraq again, regardless of whether or not their moron leader told them to carry a rifle and point it at US soldiers entering the country? hell no, those people have and/or are mothers, fathers as well as are someones child. It should be avoided, whether that involves diplomatic solutions, exile or whatever but most of those people who will die are innocent of what their leader has been accused of and it will be very unfortunate and sad if they have to die for absurd reasons. (even without this concern there are plenty of other issues discussed as well that identify how lame this potential war is).

liberal = left or right is two sizes, and two sizes don't fit all if someones going to think for themselves. i've probably sided more with the repubs in my life but yes I hate most things about this administration.

your idea displays a remarkable lack of thought = naive perhaps, I'm not completely familiar with this issue and didn't know till now that north korea probably has 1 million mortars that can be launched into south korea within about 24 hours. Anyways, my motivation tho is that I see this as a very urgent situation in this world right now and must be dealt with promptly and affectively. Constructive responses or articles that people like etech posted are cool tho in discussing the issue.
 
Btw silverchair, I wouldn't consider myself a rethug. Please edit your post to reflect it.
rolleye.gif
😛
 
can someone explain to me why N Korea is falling into our laps anyhow? I know were the worlds police, but what about the countries surrounding N. Korea that are in striking range of a nuke? Why arent they handling this, with HELP from us. It shouldnt be them helping us.
 
If they are really such a danger to their neighbors, we should poke them with a stick and tell them they are evil along with Iraq and then attack Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
Send a few cruise missles to blow up the reactor(s) that will be used for the nuclear program, before they get going. Just bomb it, like Israel did to Iraq's nuclear program in the 80's. End of story and no unnecessary lives lost.

Either that or allow them to have nukes and deploy ours throughout the region to balance the threat, which would be much more risky in the long run.

gee, if things were that simple....
rolleye.gif
 
or we can wait for the righteous UN to do nothing. their stupid leader lets 1+ million people starve and what does the world/UN do. nothing. nothings good. nothings safe. nothings fun to think about. nothings great cuz we get to sip capaccinos while the other people suffer and die. works out great.

1+ million people dying. thats bloody near genocide...

the UN and the european lackeys can go f*ck themselves.
 
Originally posted by: adlep
In case of the war with North Korea, I think we would have to use nukes to avoid American and South Korean casulaties

your logic is fascinating - u nuke a country to prevent casualties - man either get your brain checked or study how they work
 
Originally posted by: shinerburke
NK has either 5 or 6 nuclear weapons already and the means to deliver them to South Korea or Japan. Want to rethink your asshat proposal?

And still the russians (who know more about NK than any other country) say they do NOT have any nuclear weapons....

I find it so ironic that the very same people who are all for a war against Irak (who may or may not have WMD's) are against a war with NK (who have threatened the US, saying a war against the US is inevitable, and are believed to HAVE WMD's)....

The logic amazes me...
rolleye.gif


 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If they are really such a danger to their neighbors, we should poke them with a stick and tell them they are evil along with Iraq and then attack Iraq.

Hahaaaaaaaaahaaaa.... 😀
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
or we can wait for the righteous UN to do nothing. their stupid leader lets 1+ million people starve and what does the world/UN do. nothing. nothings good. nothings safe. nothings fun to think about. nothings great cuz we get to sip capaccinos while the other people suffer and die. works out great.

1+ million people dying. thats bloody near genocide...

the UN and the european lackeys can go f*ck themselves.

Oh they can? Ok mister idiotic arrogant american... explain to me how you propose to solve the situation?

Maybe there would be less people starving if the US PAID WHAT THEY OWE THE UN?

Nope, spend the money on a worthless war against Irak instead, that is the smart thing to do, isn't it?

sorry if i sound a bit harsh, but arrogant american cry-babies tend to piss me off...
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If they are really such a danger to their neighbors, we should poke them with a stick and tell them they are evil along with Iraq and then attack Iraq.
What does it look like we are doing?
::.Poke poke::
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: shinerburke NK has either 5 or 6 nuclear weapons already and the means to deliver them to South Korea or Japan. Want to rethink your asshat proposal?
Where have you read this or is this your speculation.
They announced they have nukes. They have fired a missle over japan.
Their statement isn't enough to believe that they have 5 or 6, nor is a missle test evidence of it.

I heard our govt. suggested they might have a bomb and would love to know where our govt. or another reputable source of intelligence that they might have suggested specifically 5 or 6.

How can you underestimate this country? "oh maybe they have a handful of these, a pair of those..."
Right. Anything is obtainable. When you know the right people, there are no borders....Countries aren't isolated anymore.
 
Back
Top