News North Korea Renounces Truce-U.S. Military on High Alert

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Cajun Sensation, May 28, 2009.

  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    F-22s are deployed at Elmendorf in Alaska and Hickam on Oahu. They rotate to forward bases at Kadena Japan on occasion. They are as close as they need to be--only hours away; but too far to be taken out pre-emptively. Meanwhile, F-15's already on the ground in Korea and Japan are more than adequate to deal with North Korean combat aircraft.

    Indeed, but they were extremely dirty Cold War weapons, throwing up huge amounts of long-term radioactive fallout near millions of friendly civilians. They have been replaced with neutron weapons on missiles and tactical aircraft. These devices have a deadly short-term radiation burst that kills everyone within a fairly small radius but have a very small fireball that doesn't reach the ground in an airburst, so it produces almost no fallout. You can use them on enemy formations very near friendly cities without killing all the civilians, making us much more likely to actually use them. Friendly troops can move safely through the area in a few hours. It's very cool technology. In effect it kills North Koreans and leaves South Koreans standing.

    Kim's nukes are to our nukes as a spear is to an assault rifle.

    If we fight OUR kind of war (WWII, Panama, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, etc ...) and not get sucked into the enemy's kind of war (Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, ...)
     
  2. PURPLE TIGER

    PURPLE TIGER HOPE is not a strategy!

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,186
    Likes Received:
    395
    What are the chances this Congress would approve that? I can think of about 60% of the members who would be opposed to allowing the military to actually run a war.
     
  3. burlesontiger

    burlesontiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    75
    Personally, I don't think our biggest fear is armed conflict with NK. Yes, they are nuts, but not THAT nuts. The thing that worries me more is that the only viable export those people have are weapons. As their economic situation becomes more desperate they will be reaching for the one thing that you can be sure SOMEONE in the world will be willing to trade for, UN be damned. Could it be that these bomb and missile tests have a twofold purpose? Pissing us off and advertising to the rogue world?

    A good, solid naval blockade is likely to be the best move if it can be pulled off with China's cooperation.
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Based on what? Party affiliation? Democrats have waged war many times, successful wars. There are smart wars and there are stupid wars. Smart wars are those where we use our technology and logistical reach to overwhelm an enemy quickly and violently. Stupid wars are where we get sucked into a endless guerilla knifefight trying to help people who hate us.

    Smart politicians back smart wars and reject stupid ones.
     
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    which was the correct action, and you agree with. if it were obama i think you have phrased is differently. like "obama was prudent and wonderful and patient".

    the point is that if there comes a time when serious threats need to be made, bush has the credibility to back them up. he has a history of following through, ignoring the foolishness of the UN and getting things done. even if means war. obama and hillary have no such credibility and their threats will not mean as much, and that is why bush is a better leader.
     
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    You didn't read carefully. I said that bush was compelled by his own overextention to do nothing. If he had been free to be rash, he would have been.

    yeah, you just keep repeating that to yourself. :lol: You damn sure can't show me some evidence supporting this claim.

    You should write a book about it and see how it sells.
     
  7. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    is your claim that had bush not been at war in two other placaes already that he would have gone to war in north korea? who told you that?

    have you forgotten that bush is a war loving maniac? dude loves to send american children to be killed overseas. like you always say, he doesnt even care if the war is a good idea. i dunno what could be more threatenting to rogue states than that.

    if i was north korea, i would be a helluva lot less scared of obama. when bush starts getting hyped up, he starts killing minorities.
     
  8. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    I have a friend from North Korea. I think very few people outside of North Korea understand how brainwashed their citzenry is. When my buddy first got to Canada he saw a globe and was amazed at how small North Korea was. He was taught in school that North Korea has a vast empire that encompasses most of Asia.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    The Dark Lord Cheney.

    If you were North Korea, I'd be impressed.
     
  10. mobius481

    mobius481 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,731
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    So Red, how does this all play out in your opinion?
     

Share This Page