North Korea and The Pentagon's new toy

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   
look i am really new to this this is my 1st post here but our government is very opportunistic to use anything that scares the brave ppl of the usa that way what ever project gives started get headed up by there friends and supplied by there friends and use fear as i sorce of income (out of yellow _ americans pockets) its easy and works every time and n.korea does not like ther usa because we are hurting their poppy trade and wont let them take over south korea.




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   


posted by domega
I am new . . this is my 1st post . . but our government is opportunistic to use anything that scares the people of the USA . . [Edited by Don W]



It takes “two to tango” Mr Domega. By close contact with both South Korea and Japan, I’m confident the American government “knows” pretty much what North Korea is up to.




“ . . North Korea does not like the USA because we are hurting their poppy trade and wont let them take over South Korea.



I thought the poppy was all growing in Afghan? North Korea is a paper tiger. Like the USSR used to do on May Day, they run the same guys around the corner and back down the parade route. 10 well dressed men look like a 100. If and when NK poses a genuine threat to SK, the SK will move like the US moved in GW1. Fast and deadly.

Keep up the good work, Domega. Opinions are like a part of the human anatomy we can’t say here, everyone has one.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   


posted by Implosion

I know what you're saying with regards to Osama, but am not aware of links Kim Jong Il to the US; I feel you are going to get these situations in the world anyway, If you didn't actually spark the event in the first place, the next best thing IMO would be to spin it. To use it to your own ends, which is exactly what I think is happening right here, right now [in NK]. [Edited by Don W]



OK. But Clinton's people say the NK matter was settled in 2000. We were to build 2 or 3 Westinghouse type nuclear power plants for NK. Plus food, medicines, credits and other items. The GOP Congress balked. Under Bush - post Florida - the Neo Cons see the world through different colored glasses. Recall again the 1950 Dean Acheson slip of the lip vis a vis Korea, likewise today’s Neo Cons have no place for NK to fit. I believe Kim Jong Il wants the 2000 deal today.




“ . . [The US] currently have forces firing live rounds at PEOPLE in Iraq and Afghan and nobody bats an eyelid. The only time we ever hear [about Iraq] is when we lose another one of ours. [But] North Korea had the temerity to test fire some missiles into the SEA, and all hell breaks lose.



Which puts me right back into my original scenario. Play like you're the civilian side of the Pentagon.
Q. How do you get another $100 B. for Star War 2?
A. You “produce” a threat of attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles. ICBMs.

Nobody would believe Russia is a threat in 2006. The Chinese do not have ICBMs. Too smart to waste good money. Oddly enough, next door South Korea with the most at stake, seems unconcerned, even casual. Across the smallish Sea of Japan, Japan issues only prefabricated protests. It is only the US that gets all riled up and tries to make an “issue” out of Kim Jong Il firing off a couple of re-worked ex Iraqi Scuds and hey, we’re off and running! Money ad nauseam. Or is it, money ad infinitum? And Bush has successfully played the “security” card one more time! And the media lay deadly silent?



[edit on 7/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

OK. But Clinton's people say the NK matter was settled in 2000. We were to build 2 or 3 Westinghouse type nuclear power plants for NK. Plus food, medicines, credits and other items. The GOP Congress balked. Under Bush - post Florida - the Neo Cons see the world through different colored glasses. Recall again the 1950 Dean Acheson slip of the lip vis a vis Korea, likewise today’s Neo Cons have no place for NK to fit. I believe Kim Jong Il wants the 2000 deal today.



All this is news to me. I was completely unaware of such a radical difference in approach between the two administrations. I am somewhat ignorant with regards to party politics, I just brand all politicians liars, and try my best not to pay too much attention. What interests me here is the manipulation of public opinion by the puppet media. [Incidentially, it seems to be working. Just see how many on this thread are calling for war/strikes etc.]



Which puts me right back into my original scenario. Play like you're the civilian side of the Pentagon.
Q. How do you get another $100 B. for Star War 2?
A. You “produce” a threat of attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles. ICBMs.

Nobody would believe Russia is a threat in 2006. The Chinese do not have ICBMs. Too smart to waste good money. Oddly enough, next door South Korea with the most at stake, seems unconcerned, even casual. Across the smallish Sea of Japan, Japan issues only prefabricated protests. It is only the US that gets all riled up and tries to make an “issue” out of Kim Jong Il firing off a couple of re-worked ex Iraqi Scuds and hey, we’re off and running! Money ad nauseam. Or is it, money ad infinitum? And Bush has successfully played the “security” card one more time! And the media lay deadly silent?


I completely agree with everything you've said there. It is my point entirely. Thanks.

More on the American missile defense system:


The American missile defense system is so lame that more tests may only undermine its value as a deterrent.

That's the word from the Final Report of the Missile Defense Agency's Independent Review Team (IRT). The Washington Post first noted the report on Thursday. But Arms Control Wonk Jeffrey Lewis has combed through the document, and discovered its most controversial conclusions.

The IRT recommends five changes, the cumulative effect of which will be to make testing less likely:

1. Establish a More Rigorous Flight Readiness Certification Process

2. Strengthen Systems Engineering

3. Perform additional ground-based qualification testing as a requirement for flight testing

4. Hold contractor functional organizations accountable for supporting prime contract management

5. Assure that the GMD [ground-based midcourse defense] program is executable

The general effect of these recommendations is to create a presumption against conducting any scheduled flight test—what the IRT calls "Prove why should fly." For good measure, the IRT recommends making the next integrated flight test a "non-intercept" test.

Imagine that: First, MDA rushes a defense that won’t defend to meet a deadline that just happens to coincide with a Presidential election. Then, MDA scales way back on necessary testing, lest the bad guys figure out the damn thing doesn’t work.
Source.


And, some more:

It's what Pentagon officials call "a thin line of defense" that's equal parts James Bond and Rube Goldberg. There are 11 interceptors ready to launch from silos in Alaska and California, cued to their targets by arrays of satellites and shipboard sensors all linked through a Colorado command center. The Pentagon wants 48 interceptors by 2011, including 10 in Europe — the Czech Republic and Poland are likely sites — oriented toward any threat from Iran. While the system generally isn't on full alert — meaning ready to fire its interceptors — Pentagon officials said last week the system had been cranked up to monitor, and if necessary, respond to, a possible North Korean launch headed toward the U.S.

The system, however, has failed to impress either its critics or its supporters. Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester for six years until 2001, says the shield is "a scarecrow defense" of unproven value. Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation, a long-time backer, bemoans what he sees as Administration foot-dragging. "They are so scared of test failures," he says, "they're not moving forward as fast as they can."

Shooting down a missile is no walk in the park. As the interceptor and target approach each other at six miles a second, the smallest problem means failure. A 2002 test bombed after the interceptor didn't separate from its booster. The reason: A single pin on a tiny integrated circuit broke after being violently shaken during the flight. Foam that had been there to protect the pin on prior flights had been removed, supposedly to improve the system's reliability. A 2004 test failed because an error in one line of computer code kept the interceptor grounded. The most recent failure, in February 2005, happened after two of the three arms that hold the interceptor in place in its silo didn't fully retract during launch because a part had corroded. The Missile Defense Agency penalized the Boeing Co., the system's developer, $107 million for the string of snafus. Pentagon audits also slammed Raytheon Corp., which builds the $40 million interceptor, for shoddy work. "The contractor cannot build a consistent and reliable product," the GAO said in a March report.

The Pentagon wants to leapfrog problems with the current interceptor by developing a new one. After trying for years to develop an interceptor that could discriminate between warheads and decoys — and kill only the warhead — it has given up on that goal. Instead, it wants to spend $2.4 billion through 2011 developing a "Multiple Kill Vehicle" that will unleash a dozen or more mini-interceptors to destroy all potential warheads. "This reduces the burden on sensors and algorithms, which no longer need to be programmed to select one, best target," the Pentagon says. Of course, a better interceptor won't be worth much if the booster designed to hurl it into space stays stuck in its silo because of rusty parts or sloppy software.
Source.


[edit on 6/7/06 by Implosion]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   


posted by Implosion



posted by donwhite

Under Bush the Neo Cons see the world through different colored glasses . . Neo Cons have no place for NK to fit. I believe Kim Jong Il wants the 2000 deal today.
[Edited by Don W]



I was unaware of such radical difference in approach between the two administrations. I am somewhat ignorant with regards to party politics, I just brand all politicians liars, and try my best not to pay too much attention. [Edited by Don W]



Aside. Imp, politicians are essential to the functioning of any government, free, totalitarian or in between. Suppose you have 10 different factions, each fanatically dedicated to achieving supremacy of its own POV. It falls to the politician to manage to get most if not all of the 10 groups working at least partially together on some issues. It’s not an easy job.

Resume. In June of 2000, South Korea’s 2nd level leaders traveled to Pyongyang for talks. On October 8, 2000, NKs Marshall Jo Myong-rok traveled to W-DC, meeting with Sec State Albright. On October 23, she visited Pyongyang. On October 26, 2000, she visited Seoul. The White House was optimistic the US issues with NK were about to be ended.

Post our 2000 election, the next public mention of NK was in June 2001, when a new US policy towards NK was announced. I am not privy to the intimate details of either the older Clinton policy nor to the newer Bush policy. We get only the public explanations and contradictions. No “behind the scenes” info for us poor dogs.

Implosion, I too, am left to the mercy of the media and to self serving “leaks” from government. I guess that is the plight of an “uninformed citizenry” that we have to make political decisions in the dark? First amendment, Fourth estate and all that, you know.

Over the years, I have heard NK wants a lot of things. It wants a peace treaty with the US and its allies, from the 1953 Armistice. It wants the 36,000 US soldiers off the peninsula. It wants US aid and South Korean aid. It wants both of those powers to agree to not attempt to subvert the NK government. And etc.





I agree with everything you've said there. It is my point entirely. Thanks. More on the American missile defense system:



The American missile defense system is so lame that more tests may only undermine its value as a deterrent. First, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) rushes a defense that won’t defend to meet a deadline that just happens to coincide with a Presidential election. Then, MDA scales back on necessary testing, lest the bad guys figure out the damn thing doesn’t work.

And more: Pentagon officials call it "a thin line of defense" that's equal parts James Bond and Rube Goldberg. The Pentagon wants 48 interceptors by 2011, including 10 in Europe - the Czech Republic and Poland are likely sites - oriented toward any threat from Iran. Philip Coyle, Pentagon chief weapons tester 1995-2001, says the shield is "a scarecrow defense" of unproven value.

Shooting down a missile is no walk in the park. As the interceptor and target approach each other at six miles a second, the smallest problem means failure. A 2002 test bombed after the interceptor didn't separate from its booster.

A 2004 test failed because an error in one line of computer code kept the interceptor grounded. The failure in February 2005, happened after two of the three arms that hold the interceptor in place in its silo didn't fully retract during launch because a part had corroded.

The MDA penalized Boeing, the system's developer, $107 million for the string of snafus. Pentagon audits slammed Raytheon, which builds the $40 million interceptor, for shoddy work. "Raytheon cannot build a consistent and reliable product," the GAO said in a March report. Of course, a better interceptor won't be worth much if the booster designed to hurl it into space stays stuck in its silo because of rusty parts or sloppy software. [Edited by Don W]





Leadership.

This all comes down to leadership. We are stuck with our current “leadership” until January 20, 2009. More than 2 years away. Our current leadership has made more than its share of mistakes. Yet, it is intractable. It cannot either admit of error or offer alternate policies.

That's why I am calling for a Constitutional Convention to give America a 21st century document and to bid a fond adieu to the 18th century model. What worked for a pro slavery era and 3 million people is not working well in a world when we can communicate instantly around the globe and have 300 million people including 12 million semi-citizens.

We’ve got to get with the times. Or the times will leave is mired in the past. Endless argument over what the Founding Fathers meant. Like the number of angels to dance on the head of a pin. Or the hot topic of the 11th and 12th centuries, of what sex - if any - were angels?

For reliable info source, see www.asiasociety.org...


[edit on 7/7/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

For reliable info source, see www.asiasociety.org...


That's a very interesting source. I find it sheds new light on the recent actions of North Korea:


American press on March 9, 2002, suggested that the United States might use nuclear weapons in pursuit of its foreign-policy goals. For South Koreans, any kind of military action against North Korea is virtually an opening salvo in a second Korean War. That such military action might come sooner rather than later (President Bush said that in the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, time was not on America's side) has given rise to talk of the "crisis of 2003." The phrase appears to have been coined by Lim Dong-won in a talk he gave to a domestic audience on March 19, 2002. The reference to 2003, eagerly picked up and elaborated on by the press, refers to the fact that in 2003 North Korea's self-imposed moratorium on testing long-range missiles is due to expire, while the two nuclear reactors being constructed by KEDO as a quid pro quo to keep the freeze on North Korea's nuclear program will not yet have been delivered. If the North should threaten either to begin testing long-range missiles or to restart its old nuclear reactors, the Bush administration might be tempted to follow harsh rhetoric with harsh action. Ironically, in the eyes of many South Koreans, the attitudes and behaviour of the Bush administration closely resemble those that the United States attributes to China: hegemonic desires, closed policy-making, and disregard for the stability of East Asia. The question becomes, what can the South Korean people and their leaders do to restrain the Americans?


It seems to me that the current US administration has North Korea between a rock and a hard place. No reactors delivered as promised in return for the freeze on missile testing/restarting of nuclear facilities, forces North Koreans to act, which in turn plays directly into the hands of the Pentagon, who use the resumption of tests as a way of cultivating support for its own agenda.

[edit on 7/7/06 by Implosion]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   


posted by Implosion

“ . . An interesting source . . it sheds new light on the recent actions of North Korea



March 9, 2002, press suggested that the US might use nuclear weapons in pursuit of its foreign-policy goals. For South Koreans, any kind of military action against North Korea is virtually an opening salvo in a second Korean War.

SK President Lim Dong-won in a talk to a domestic audience in 2002 eagerly picked up and elaborated on by the press, refers to the fact North Korea's self-imposed moratorium on testing long-range missiles is due to expire in 2003, while the two nuclear reactors being constructed by KEDO as a quid pro quo to keep the freeze on North Korea's nuclear program have yet to be delivered.

SK fears the Bush administration might be tempted to follow harsh rhetoric with harsh action. Ironically, in the eyes of South Korea, the attitudes and behavior of Bush closely resemble those that the United States attributes to China: hegemonic desires, closed policy-making, and disregard for the stability of East Asia.

The question becomes, what can the South Korean people and their leaders do to restrain the Americans? [Edited by Don W]



It seems to me that the current US administration has North Korea between a rock and a hard place. No reactors delivered as promised in return for the freeze on missile testing or restarting of nuclear facilities, forces North Koreans to act, which in turn plays directly into the hands of the Neo Con civilians in control of the Pentagon, who use the resumption of tests as a way of cultivating support for its own agenda.



Exactly! For Neo Cons and Military Industrial Complex types it is a win win situation! For SK and NK and the world, it may be a lose lose situation! If you are into prayer, please ask your Great Communicator in the Sky to forestall Bush until January 20, 2009.

(Note: I exclude uniformed types from the “Pentagon - MIC” accusation.)


Bush has a free pass until 2009. Governance without Accountability. The best of all possible worlds!


Plus, equally as dangerous, the Bush-Gonzales duo asserts the Commander-in-Chief power in US Con. Art. 2, Sec. 2, Clause 1, is
A) without limit and
B) as to be determined by the President acting alone.

No president including A. Lincoln ever claimed this power before Bush.

Wow! Is this the American equivalent of the Pope’s speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals? Infallible. Wow!



[edit on 7/7/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
[edit on 7/7/06 by cosmo dag]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The North Korean threat is nothing more than a ploy for the Military to get more funds for equipment. This stand that the current administration and the UN are taking makes me think. It makes me think that if North Korea actually had the nukes that the Pentagon is claiming that they have, they would have used them on South Korea and Japan by now. For all we know, they may just be using the plutonium for research into nuclear power plants. That's just my take on this though.

Even if the North Koreans had actually built a nuke as a weapon, it would take years for them to develop it into a fully compatible submarine or land based ICBM. Yes the United States did in fact develop the first A-Bombs, but look at how long it took for the military to develop it into a long range missile. It took until the mid to late 1950s for us to have a long range nuclear missile. Plus, the North Koreans really don't have a means of delivering a nuclear weapon that is technologically advanced.

Plus, wouldn't it take them longer to figure out a way by the West Coast Missile Detection system that we have in place??



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
The North Korean threat is nothing more than a ploy for the Military to get more funds for equipment. This stand that the current administration and the UN are taking makes me think. It makes me think that if North Korea actually had the nukes that the Pentagon is claiming that they have, they would have used them on South Korea and Japan by now.


It's possible.

Now, I'm not trying to negate the threat that North Korea poses to it's neighbors, however, I do feel as though the focus of the media with regards to North Korea is due to the fact it fits in with their agenda nicely. I.E. More spending of tax payers money on an unproven system in the name of national defence from a now nuclear nation. The fact is that it is unknown whether or not North Korea even has another nuke, and it's a certainty that they lack the means of delivery. The notion that they could use a conventional bomber against the United States is absurd, so I wont even entertain it, and the test of the Taepodong-2 earlier this year shows the world exactly what stage they are at in their weapons development, if only people choose to open their eyes and see it for themselves.

Still nothing like the fear and paranoia of the masses to justify massive spending of tax payers dollars by the military-industrial complex.

[edit on 10/10/06 by Implosion]





top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join