It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mpeake
I do not think that war is coming with North Korea. As it has already been said, N. Korea has been using this threat for many years. IMO, they want nukes for the same reason the US, or anyone else wants them, to deter an invading force. The US will not invade N. Korea, because it is not a guaranteed victory.
IMPLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY: When asked to comment on NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL’s story concerning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s role as a board director of ABB—the Zurich-based energy company that sold two light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea in 2000—Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke responded, “There was no vote on this issue and Secretary Rumsfeld does not recall [the sale of the reactors] being brought before the board at any time.” ABB has declined repeated requests to make board-meeting minutes available, but there is little doubt within ABB that its board members knew about the deal. In fact, ABB CEO Goran Lindahl visited North Korea himself in November 1999 to announce ABB’s “wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement” with the communist regime and announced the opening of an ABB office in Pyongyang. Board meetings attended by Rumsfeld were held before and after Lindahl’s visit to Pyongyang. ABB’s U.S. spokesman, Ronald Kurtz, notes that he would “find it hard to imagine how anyone on the board did not know about this deal—because of its political complexity.” And in the event that Rumsfeld simply nodded off to sleep every time the topic came up, ABB celebrated the deal with a January 2000 press release headlined: ABB TO DELIVER SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT TO NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR PLANTS. $200 MILLION IN ORDERS AWARDED UNDER MULTI-GOVERNMENT FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT. Surely even a board member totally uninterested in nukes—let alone Rumsfeld—would have read that.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea has the ability to mount a nuclear missile on a long-range missile and the communist state could hit U.S. territory, the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said on Thursday.
The agency played down the statement by its director, Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, which appeared to break new ground, and said he was speaking theoretically, but it prompted expressions of deep concern from Democrats.
President Bush, asked about the assessment at a White House news conference, said it was not certain whether Kim Jong-il, President of the reclusive communist state, had developed the ability to arm missiles with a nuclear weapon.
U.S. Agency Says N.Korea Can Mount Warhead on Missile
Originally posted by Indy
This guy can say pretty much whatever he wants because he knows the US doesn't have the resources or stomach for another Iraq type war. Thats what a war with NK would be.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
They say that so much it's lost all meaning. Does anybody in their right mind really think that Crazy Kim is going to attack South Korea or launch a missile at somebody after China fails to veto sanctions against him? You'd have to be stoned!
In my arrogant opinion (why bother calling it humble when you all know me), the UN needs to impose the sanctions now simply to show Iran and everyone else in the world (USA included depending on your point of view) that nuclear weapons/military might does not exempt you from the rule of law.)
I don't think they would do anything. I've said it a million times- it would be a slap in the face to China, and if there's one thing I don't advise doing, it's screwing with China's pride when you haven't got plenty of ocean between you and them.
Even if I'm wrong, in my opinion it would be a war worth fighting (for the UN). I'm not a big fan of the UN, I don't really want the UN to become all that powerful honestly, but objectively speaking if the UN intends to wield any authority they have to establish RULE of law, not suggestion of law, and the only way do to that is by enforcement. Key word: FORCE. From the UN point of view (not my own) the UN should NEVER back down. If it means world war three, even a nuclear world war three, so be it, because you can't have order without deterrence of some form, and you can't have deterrence without making your resolve unqestionable.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
If it means world war three, even a nuclear world war three, so be it, because you can't have order without deterrence of some form, and you can't have deterrence without making your resolve unqestionable.
Originally posted by Indy
This guy can say pretty much whatever he wants because he knows the US doesn't have the resources or stomach for another Iraq type war. Thats what a war with NK would be.
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Originally posted by The Vagabond
If it means world war three, even a nuclear world war three, so be it, because you can't have order without deterrence of some form, and you can't have deterrence without making your resolve unqestionable.
Yep, nobody could question the UN's resolve then! Nobody...
Originally posted by The Vagabond
This is kind of half baked and foolish I know. I'm making the arguement more for amusment than anything else, but really, what exactly are we clinging to? Corruption, stagnation, and slow death? Why not take a gamble on evolution- afterall, it might not mean nuclear war. Maybe the threat would be enough.
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
For a threat to be taken seriously, it has to be believeable and unfortunately many countries would not believe the UN would go so far as forcing a nuclear conflict. That's exactly when you want to duck and cover, because things can go very badly when you start calling bluffs. Our tenth generation grandkids might not thanks us for playing chicken with their planet.
[edit on 4/29/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]
... after Washington said it may take the issue of the communist nation's nuclear program to the UN Security Council.
Originally posted by orionthehunter
The odd thing about this whole situation is that NK seems to think having nuclear weapons will deter the US or possibly get some blackmail money which the current administration doesn't seem willing to pay. However developing nuclear weapons and the ability to share that has vastly increased the chance NK will be attacked in my opinion.
Originally posted by orionthehunter
If NK didn't want to be invaded, they could simply get rid of their nuclear weapon program and nukes. Apparently NK is believing they can still get money, resources or something out of all this rhetoric.
Originally posted by orionthehunter
If NK does an attack or starts a nuclear war, the US has a few nukes of our own we can respond with. If NK starts it, the US public will be totally committed to the war as well. Of course if nukes are used, it will be a very short war I believe. It would also be a total breakdown of diplomacy and common sense for NK in my opinion.
Originally posted by orionthehunter
The world economy would also suffer tremendously under the uncertainty of war between two nuclear countries IMO. The economic situation would definitely affect China and other countries as well so that makes this possible situation a world problem and not just a US-NK problem.
Originally posted by subz
Vagabond you must truly be a fool to believe what you've been typing. Ive never resorted to name calling before on here but I think your rather lengthy posts have angered me enough to warrant it.
If the World had adhered to your logic 50 years ago practically none of us here reading this thread would be alive. Why? Because the United States would of entered into a nuclear war with the USSR thats why.
The fall out from that war would of contaminated all of the continental United States and all of Europe. Great freakin gamble, stave off a potential larger war by starting a smaller one.
Fantastic idea. Can I suggest an alternative? Rather than making our deaths a certainty cant we just hope that the status quo will prevail and we'll all get to keep living and breathing? I'd rather put faith in the status quo than absolutely condemn myself and millions of others to death just for sh*ts and giggles.
Back on topic, the North Koreans are bluffing, pure and simple. As stated before this is their prefered tactic to get what they want.
So ramping up sanctions, in my understanding, will do little to stop North Korea's rise to a nuclear power as it has done absolutely nothing to prevent the situation we find ourselves in currently anway. Also the threat of war is a little hollow when you realise that they are already under sanctions in the first place.