And we're all so worked up about Iran?

[PLATO]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says the U.S. is fully capable of defending itself after a North Korean ballistic missile attack.

White House spokesman Jay Carney was responding to the North's vow to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the U.S. That threat came in retaliation for tough new U.N. sanctions against Pyongyang for its recent nuclear test.

Carney says the sanctions further isolate North Korea and show its leaders what will happen if they defy the international community. He says the breadth and severity of the sanctions show the world takes seriously the threat of North Korea's nuclear program.

North Korea boasts of nuclear bombs but isn't thought to have the ability to produce a warhead that could be used on a missile capable of reaching the U.S.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-us-defend-against-nuclear-strike-182116810--politics.html

So there!

[Alexander's Horse]

NK, which I spent a couple of years working on up there is Seoul, is the ultimate rogue state. China doesn't control them. There is a risk they will go out in a blaze of glory but the nuclear program has two main practical purposes, one is to show the regime is still virile and superior to the south. The other is to blackmail aid out of the surrounding states.

The strategic purpose is real but there is no evidence thus far NK can actually weaponise the devices they are setting off, which could be as big as a house. If they do manage to match a crude warhead to a missile things could get interesting, especially because they might want to test to show they can do it. But where do they fire the missile?

The biggest immediate military threat is all the conventional artillery NK has ranged on Seoul, up to 10,000 pieces which it has been estimated could inflict up to 100,00 casualties in a week. The main flash point is the sea equivalent of the DMZ, the northern limit line (NLL), which NK is trying to push back south. That was what their firing on islands was about, and the sinking of the ROK ship.

[Dinner]

This is just their regular chest thumping because they know they'd be incinerated in the response. It's North Korea desperately trying to convince it's starving and repressed population that the tin pot dictator isn't as weak as he seems while also trying to get the world to look at it so it can extort more free stuff in the form of aid. Ignore them and give them nothing. What will they really do?

[Krill]

I wonder if China would invade or nuke NK if NK actually did launch a nuke at the US. Just to try and prevent WW3.

[Sava]

any man that dresses business casualk all the time is not to be trifled with

[Hauldren Collider]

I wonder if China would invade or nuke NK if NK actually did launch a nuke at the US. Just to try and prevent WW3.

There would be no World War 3. No one is going to get into a nuclear conflagration with America on account of North Korea.

[Hauldren Collider]

dp

[Sava]

its just a matter of time before some damned thing like fusion gets invented
then ground based xrays will be able to knock out icbms
ww3 will be robot uv's
chinese will just bunker down
probably be some damned islamist
instead of ferdinand, it'll be san diego or norfolk
some place where a carrier sits

[Zevico]

Richard Fernandez argues that South Korea's self-reliance policy (dare I use the word "Juche"?) reflects increasing doubt about the ability of the United States to maintain Pax Americana going forward. Look hither:

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/03/10/the-pinocchio-paradox/

Fernandez argues that this quote from a Mr Kwon reflects the underlying support of the public for nuclearisation:

Opinions like Mr. Kwon’s appear to be spreading. Two opinion polls conducted after the third test, one by Gallup Korea and the other by the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, found that 64 to 66.5 percent of the respondents supported the idea that South Korea should develop its own nuclear weapons, similar to polls after the Yeonpyeong attack in 2010.

“Having a nuclear North Korea is like facing a person holding a gun with just your bare hands,” said Mr. Kwon, the engineer. South Koreans should have “our own nuclear capabilities, in case the U.S. pulls out like it did in Vietnam.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/world/asia/as-north-korea-blusters-south-breaks-taboo-on-nuclear-talk.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Fernandez argues:

Why after more than 50 years does South Korea suddenly have these doubts? Why after more than half a century, despite a Peace Constitution, is Japan de facto re-arming? What has changed?

Maybe it has to do with an administration that wants to disarm the United States itself, that counsels everyone who will listen that when confronted with a gun everyone should just call the police (but America is no longer the global policeman) and thinks the withdrawal from Vietnam was the high point of ’60s. Surely that’s going to bring peace, Aquarius and understanding? Just ask Piers Morgan. Just ask Barack Obama.

Who has the heart to tell John Kerry that the high point of his youth is now a synonym for betrayal?

[Sava]

This Fernandez guy is a complete toolbag. No wonder you like him so much.

[SlowwHand]

What do you disagree with?

[kentonio]

A conservative commentator windbag thinks that the Kenyan communist is destroying teh America? Who saw that coming..

Funny how the NY Times drew a somewhat more logical conclusion that South Korea are getting twitchy because the US is actually unable to control NK's nuclear program, regardless of the occupant of the white house. Then again as Zevico favours the genocide of half the Islamic faith, it seems plausible that he'd also love a new Korean war that wipes out a few hundred thousand innocent people.

[Zevico]

A conservative commentator windbag thinks that the Kenyan communist is destroying teh America? Who saw that coming..

You really have to construct a lot of fantasies to maintain your world view.

Funny how the NY Times drew a somewhat more logical conclusion that South Korea are getting twitchy because the US is actually unable to control NK's nuclear program.

That's been the case since the beginning of NK's nuclear program.

Then again as Zevico favours the genocide of half the Islamic faith, it seems plausible that he'd also love a new Korean war that wipes out a few hundred thousand innocent people.

You really have to construct a lot of fantasies to maintain your world view.

The United States' withdrawal from Pax Americana is not a function of one man but of a change in culture from limited government to welfare state. For a time they tried both Pax Americana and a welfare state together. Now they just want one. Too many Americans have forgotten that without their power the world becomes a more dangerous place.

Still, they lived through the New Deal and the English survived Chamberlain. Things today are better than that time at least.

[kentonio]

That's been the case since the beginning of NK's nuclear program.

Yes, exactly.

The United States' withdrawal from Pax Americana is not a function of one man but of a change in culture from limited government to welfare state. For a time they tried both Pax Americana and a welfare state together. Now they just want one. Too many Americans have forgotten that without their power the world becomes a more dangerous place.

The idea that America cannot maintain a strong international presence and take care of its people at the same time is nonsensical, it's like saying you can eat oranges or wear a hat, but you can't do both damnit! America's military spending is so vast, that even a radical cut would still leave the US comfortably on top, and more than capable of expending its defense capabilities to South Korea.

Let's just look at this situation again, North Korea threatens nukes again, South Korea gets a bit understandably freaked out and starts getting paranoid, and suddenly this means the sky is falling in? Blah..

One final thing however, the idea of Pax Americana was always pretty questionable. Aside from the obvious imperialistic overtones, the idea that one country, superpower or not, was able to guarantee peace was always stupidly optimistic and was more a sop to American exceptionism than anything else. It also helped feed into the 'end justifies the means, and the American end goals are always benign' thinking that led to Iraq.

[kentonio]

That's been the case since the beginning of NK's nuclear program.

Yes, exactly.

The United States' withdrawal from Pax Americana is not a function of one man but of a change in culture from limited government to welfare state. For a time they tried both Pax Americana and a welfare state together. Now they just want one. Too many Americans have forgotten that without their power the world becomes a more dangerous place.

The idea that America cannot maintain a strong international presence and take care of its people at the same time is nonsensical, it's like saying you can eat oranges or wear a hat, but you can't do both damnit! America's military spending is so vast, that even a radical cut would still leave the US comfortably on top, and more than capable of expending its defense capabilities to South Korea.

Let's just look at this situation again, North Korea threatens nukes again, South Korea gets a bit understandably freaked out and starts getting paranoid, and suddenly this means the sky is falling in? Blah..

One final thing however, the idea of Pax Americana was always pretty questionable. Aside from the obvious imperialistic overtones, the idea that one country, superpower or not, was able to guarantee peace was always stupidly optimistic and was more a sop to American exceptionism than anything else. It also helped feed into the 'end justifies the means, and the American end goals are always benign' thinking that led to Iraq.