Article

2006-06-22 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2006-06-22 06:24|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Funny. I was about to post this article with the same exact comment.

If we had bipartisan support to do this, our enemies would never test us in the way that NK is now doing. Unfortunately William "the Refigerator" Perry and Ashton Carter do not have influence over Pelosi or Reid.

They have succeed in convincing me that we should take it out on the pad if NK does not follow appropriate procedures to notify airmen and mariners, etc.

Posted by JAB 2006-06-22 09:09|| 2006-06-22 09:09|| Front Page Top

#2 Our options here are very limited, but Perry and Carter are completely wrong.

First of all, we don't know for sure that the bird has been fueled. Everyone says that you have to launch a liquid-fueled missile shortly after you fuel it, etc, etc. Okay -- if it's been fueled, when's it going to fly? Everyday it sits there is another day for the missile to corrode.

So maybe our intel is wrong. Again. So maybe we shouldn't jump the gun.

A nuclear strike on N Korea, in the absence of an overt attack by them on us or Japan, would ruin us in the world. We'd be pariahs even if China and Russia didn't respond right away.

A conventional attack guarentees the destruction of Seoul. That's a city of 11 million people. How many millions would die in a conventional war? And we can't count on a decapitation scenario; I'll bet Kimmie is at least as good as Saddam ever was in not being where we can put a laser-dot him.

Blowing up the missile pad, as Carter and Perry advocate, leads directly to war. We'd win it at the cost of millions of civilian casualties. No.

As Mr. Warren notes in the other article, this isn't a missile test, this is a provocation. Negotiations won't work (we all know that), because Kimmie is a sociopath -- he'll lie, pocket our concessions and provoke us again.

So the only realistic option is containment. That means staying calm and not responding to provocation. Perry and Carter are wrong to advocate shooting it down if they really mean that, but they're smart if what they are really going after is good containment -- we show the NKors that they don't particularly rattle us, because we have the technology to settle their hash.

For this particular situation -- as long as the Taepodong doesn't hit American or Japanese soil, we stay calm. Don't shoot it down; track it, use it as a dry-run exercise for the anti-missile systems, and sit back. Make a few taunts -- is that all ya got, little man? But containment, always, until North Korea implodes.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-06-22 12:29|| 2006-06-22 12:29|| Front Page Top

#3 Track it into the boost phase, and splash it as soon as it hits international airspace. Justify it by claiming that the trajectory threatened Tokyo, or Klamath Falls, or someplace, and there was no NOTAM issued in advance so we couldn't be sure it wasn't a warshot.

Posted by Mike 2006-06-22 15:42|| 2006-06-22 15:42|| Front Page Top

#4 What Steve White sed.

Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil?
Hummmmm....

Posted by 6 2006-06-22 15:45|| 2006-06-22 15:45|| Front Page Top

#5 If I was Japan, I'd destroy it on the pad.

I understand Steve's point. Kicking the can down the road has been our NK strategy since the Clinton admin at least. It may well work as NK's system is utterly unsustainable.

Still Carter/Perry do address his arguments. It is not clear that destroying the device on the pad will definitely lead to the shelling of Seoul. And, even if it did, the fact that they now have an ICBM means that our interests have officially diverged from those of SK. The fact that NK might attack an uninvolved 3rd party should not automatically stop us from defending ourselves if we perceive an imminent threat.

Similarly, Japan also has to consider its own security when deciding what to do about the missile and considerations about SK must be of secondary concern. They're closer, and therefore I think they are more likely to conclude it must be taken out.

I assume we are sharing intel with Japan and SK. Hopefully we can verify that it's not a warshot and follow Steve's approach.

However, if we (the US and/or Japan) cannot make this determination, we need to err on the side of caution when considering how to protect our homelands from an ICBM brandished by a nuclear armed rogue state. Maybe the ingrates in Seoul should have thought this through a few moves before taking their odd nationalistic yet selfish soft line stance vs. the Norks instead of fomenting the collapse of the regime.

My only concern is for our military people stationed in SK and I believe the fact that they are at risk (one SK legislator referred to them as 'hostages' a couple years ago) is the real reason we will not likely take out the missiles on the pad.

Posted by JAB 2006-06-22 16:02|| 2006-06-22 16:02|| Front Page Top

#6 splash it

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-22 16:05|| 2006-06-22 16:05|| Front Page Top

#7 Call the bastards out and be done with it, we've been phueching with them since 1950. Sixtysix years should be long enuf. The gig is up! End it quickly, the shi*storm will be over in a couple of weeks.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-06-22 16:18|| 2006-06-22 16:18|| Front Page Top

#8 I am with Frank.

Posted by 3dc 2006-06-22 23:54|| 2006-06-22 23:54|| Front Page Top

23:54 3dc
23:34 Redneck Jim
23:27 RD
23:27 ed
23:14 Mary Lu
23:01 trailing wife
22:55 Robert Crawford
22:53 Redneck Jim
22:51 Eric Jablow
22:50 Mike
22:47 Warthog
22:46 trailing wife
22:44 Kalle
22:44 Warthog
22:39 trailing wife
22:28 Oldspook
22:23 Robert Crawford
22:22 Frank G
22:22 Oldspook
22:20 trailing wife
22:19 Robert Crawford
22:16 Frank G
22:14 Frank G
22:12 Frank G