It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Strategic Approach for North Korea

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:49 PM
It amazes me everytime some nutcase dictator goes... ballistic, how so many rank amatures come out with advice on the best approach to solve the problem. Armchair quarterbacks from the conservative and liberal side of dealing with difficult problems come out in their typical war/peace montra. Retired Military officers of every spectrum take the to the TV screen with advice for tactical analysis regarding capability, intent, and advice regarding handling the problem, while retired politicans and working politcal consultants promote questionable opinions.

Now that we understand the advice requirement has no minimum, I'd like to offer my strategic approach for success.

If you are reading the experts, and avoiding the rank amature nature of the print and TV media, then you would know several important details often missed by the US media talking points.

First, while it is true the path of the missile was tracking towards Hawaii, the experts noted it was actually tracking an inclination of 41 degrees. So technically, Hawaii is accurate, except the 41 degree inclination points to a completely different conclusion if applying astrodynamics, it actually points out:

C. P. Vick Analysis at,
The trajectory ground track would head east and south towards the mid pacific equatorial crossing of roughly 180-160 degrees West or 180-200 degrees east. This is based on the Taep’o-dong-1 three stage launch precursor experience. This would, however, place the vehicle's trajectory nowhere near Alaska or California ABM facilities but closer to the Hawaiian Islands and Kwajalein Atoll. By the time the payload crosses the equator, it will have probably already have been placed into earth orbit.

The media hype is irresponsible at best, promoting the idea that the threat is real but the danger is not, and because the threat is real we must act NOW or else, but the danger doesn't exist because of The Strategic Defense Initiative. I think that analysis is absolutely flawed, and my hope is Bush defies the tendency to follow that type of irrational conclusion. In my opinion, the Threat is not real, but the danger is. There is no imminent danger to the US, there will not be missiles reigning nuclear destruction onto US soil tomorrow, next week, or next month. The danger is real, nuclear weapons and Intercontinental Missiles are not a joke by any means, but because the threat isn't impending like the media is hyping, hte US government has time to do this right.

You see, one of the main staples of spreading governing ideology in the world is through the use of Satellite States, also known as puppet states or client states to promote agenda by proxy through a third party. During the Cold War, the Russians and the US were masterful using this method to promote idealogy of communism and democracy. It is also utilized in the spread of socialism and idealogy like Bolivarianism, which is why countries like Venezuela get so much attention with client states like Bolivia.

Today it is no different, with Iraq being an example of the US establishing a client state for democracy while North Korea is China's lone client state. From the US perspective, this puts the bullseye directly on China, and while North Korea might be the focus, the showdown is between the US and China.

One example is the news today that China made a private pledge with the Bush administration to halt the North Korean missile tests. Considering China's pledge didn't work out, the two theories reported in the article are either China doesn't have influence over North Korea, or China flat out lied to the US. While the fine points of which is accurate could certainly be debated, the question is, does it matter?

Because if there is no imminent threat, which I don't believe there is, the US has time. That time can be used pulling South Korea, Japan, Australia, and Taiwan into a room and establishing the requirements, ...for China. You see, if China can make the private pledges the first time, they most certainly can now, but this time they have to make the private pledge with everyone in the region, and what happens determines what China's influence in the region will be.

If China privately pledges to stop a second round of missile launches to not only the US, but Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Taiwan, and no missiles are launched then the US wins with diplomacy. If China makes the same private pledges and North Korea launches, China loses face, and loses virtually all credibility regarding North Korea with the region, which effectively reduces China's influence in the region with neighboring states. If China doesn't make any pledges, the US gets to leverage this against China with neighboring states, which not only leads to a new series of arms deals for the US, but also leads to less trust of China and more strategic ties for the US in the region.

Here is the catch. North Korea have to launch a missile successfully, because Ballistic Missile Technology is virtually the only export North Korea has, and without a successful test, the big buyers won't buy. There are no DMZ military movements, have you asked why? It is because it is harvest season, and the NK Army harvests the food.

Factor in Chinese Olympics in 2008, no food, and no export, and the recipe is end game for NK with China forced to act.

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:32 PM
Another war by Proxy. Very good.

Thats a pretty good idea, actually. Although cutting off China is more beneficial than just dealing with North Korea. The west feeds China too much with its outsourced jobs and such. We are digging our own graves there.

new topics

log in