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.

 

U.S. Response To N.K. bomb Test

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Well, now that we've seen what sort of response will come from the United Nations in regards to North Korea, has your opinion changed? What do you think needs to be done now?


I cant speake for anyone else but my opinion hasnt changed the way to deal with North Korea is to cut off all aid and impose a full econmic blockade. IMO the UN sanctions will be very ineffictive to say the least. North Korea puts a large focus on smuggling. Kim and his cronies will still get there so called luxury goods.




posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I do agree that a complete naval blockade of North Korea seems in order. Such an total embargo would force the Chinese to take responsibility for their proxy. We should be prepared for this embargo and blockade to be in place for atleast two years.

This thing with North Korea is in our national interest. That's going to mean tha it won't be good for partisan politics. Republicans will be made to look bad in the eyes of the international community and the voters at home. Overseas leaders and political interests will be able to take a lot of easy shots at the GOP for this, but I will still hope that they have the spine to do it.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Heres another update.


In Seoul, the South Korean Foreign Ministry said it would "faithfully implement" the resolution. But South Korea has said it will not pull the plug on its two main projects in the North, an industrial park and a mountain resort, which supply steady cash to Pyongyang's leaders.

In Tokyo, Shoichi Nakagawa, chairman of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's Policy Research Council, said Japan will adhere to its policy of not arming itself with nuclear weapons, but added debate on the issue was necessary.

China warned the 15 Security Council members not to take "provocative steps," in particular the cargo inspections. The provision was toned down at Beijing's request, but still authorises countries to inspect cargo.

John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations, told CNN's Late Edition that Washington hopes searches at sea can mostly be avoided.

Japan, which last week imposed tough sanctions on North Korea including a six-month import ban, is likely to do more, media reports said.


link

What can I say ?
An econmic blockade of North Korea would be a smart intervention. It seems that even the government of South Korea dosnt have the spine to put an end to an failed state. The government of South Korea should be the first to step up to the plate after all its South Korea who faces the greatist threate from Kims regime.


[edit on 15-10-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   
It now seems clear that the American response needs to be a total blockade of North Korea. It's a question of credibility at this point. Now that the U.N. has shown itself to once again to be weak, the U.S. response needs to be seen as strong in order to avoid the appearnace of being held in check by such an ineffectual entity.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It now seems clear that the American response needs to be a total blockade of North Korea. It's a question of credibility at this point. Now that the U.N. has shown itself to once again to be weak, the U.S. response needs to be seen as strong in order to avoid the appearnace of being held in check by such an ineffectual entity.


I doubt that the US will impose an naval blockade on North Korea. The
bush admin has a record of poor thought out and incomptant military intervention. A golden chance will be or has been blown to improve security in the region without even putting more boots on the ground.



AUSTRALIA is to ban North Korean ships from all its ports.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer today threw the Federal Government's support behind a UN Security Council naval blockade of the communist state.

He said Australia was considering how it might contribute to the blockade.

"The Government welcomes the unanimous passage of Security Council resolution 1718, which was passed over the weekend," Mr Downer told Parliament.



[edit on 16-10-2006 by xpert11]link

This seem to point out the kind of half measures that we will see no ship should be able to leave or enter North Korea.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 16-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 16-10-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I do agree that it seems less and less likely that the Bush administration will follow through on a naval blockage...I mean blockade. Even with a South Korean soon to take up the role of U.N. Secretary General, we are clearly witnessing a lackluster response from the West which will surely be seen by the North Koreans themselves as just one more signal that they're on the right track.

Even so, it still seems necessary to me to impose some sort of ship-searching program on the North Koreans. If nothing else, the gesture is necessary. I have no doubts that the Iranians will will be watching this show-down with great interest. If we can't rally suport for action against Nork Korea, we certainly won't be able to get the help we need to deal with Iran.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
If Korea declared war over a naval blockade. would you still do it?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If Korea declared war over a naval blockade. would you still do it?


That's a good question. I had to think about this one for a while before typing this answer. My answer has to be , "yes."

I don't actually see a formal war declaration coming out of North Korea. I DO see an attack on South Korea. I can even see how the DPRK might justify that attack. they might call it a war of liberation. Given that the next U.N. SecGen is going to be a South Korean, they might be able to split world opinion if they choose their words correctly.

In the event of this offensive against South Korea, an American President would pretty much get anything they asked the Congress for. It's quite likely that Congress would allow a free hand in military matters, to be sure. We've only got 30,000 troops in South Korea, which really means about 10,000 combat arms wit hthe rest being support. American opinion would rally quite fast when the media reports on the fate of those beleagured men and women.

Like the Marines at Corregidor, the loss of those few service personnel in South Korea would enrage many while causing others to call for seift action. As a citizens, I find this line of reasoning to be despicable, but as a political scientist, I can't deny the power of it.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Agit8dChop if North Korea was dumb enough to take any military action against South Korea or anyone else I wouldnt let that fact stop any econmic blockade of North Korea.
I just cant see North Korea standing much of a chance in an armed conflict with the US and its allies.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
In the long run, North Korea couldn't win. In the short run, they might hold South Korea for as long as two years. Everything hinges on just how much an American President is willing to do. Would they call for a draft? Would they ask the general public to enlist? As it stands right now, the United States couldn't do much more than deploy three carrier battle groups to support the 30,000 souls already on the ground next to the South Korean army.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Not the the president would listen, but I would encourage him to make more strides towards peace with North Korea and not to be so openly hostile towards them - even if they do grossly opress their people. He should have serious whole-hearted talks with them about their intentions and what our country can do to help theirs. Just because they choose to opress their people does'nt mean we still should'nt try to help them. A life is a life, regardless.

But I'm sure everyone here has seen the film Team America: World Police already have'nt they?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I think that any show of tenderness at this point would be a wasted effort. The North Korean regime would not react any differently even if the next President decided to step back and try those tactics.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Oxygen_kills the diplomatic course of action failed and it can only fail again the nice approach dosnt work with the likes of Kims regimes. Military intervention in the form of an econmic blockade is the only measure that will have any effect on Kims regime.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
It's important to understand tha the U.N. sanctions soon to be in effect amount to very little. The U.N. appears to be taking action without atually breaking a sweat. Even if the United States follows through on its threat to blockade, we won't see much change in the DPRK's posture or their activities.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Its not really the point of who'd win, or who'd lose.. or how long it would take.
But the lives lost, the money spent and the effect it would have on regional aspects...

is it really worth attempting to stop them from KEEPing there already researched and gained weapons?

I mean, they have them. They built them , and know how and have the means...
They are threatening to defend themselves against any nation that attacks it..

fair enough.

they arent going off willy nilly attacking people without due course are they.

So, youve got the choice.

Allow a nuclear armed north korea to sit there... and shout rhetoric..
OR
You can force a naval blockade, one which they have said the ywould declare war over.


In everything that would happen from now, until the day north korea is obliterated.... will it all be worth simply removing the nuclear arms they have?
When its becoming clear nuclear arms are easier to come by...

I dont understand why we HAVE To do anything
why chose war, over the risk of war.
when you can have peace, with the risk of war.

If we put sanctions on every country that doest like us, or every country that CAN build weapons, or every country that BUILDS weapons...
well.. eveantually.. we are going to have to have military blockades and sanctions the world over...

just oldham, im glad it took you a while to come to your answer,
I mightnt agree with it.. but its comforting to see some people understand the extremes this relatively simple situation could so easily become.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Its not really the point of who'd win, or who'd lose.. or how long it would take.
But the lives lost, the money spent and the effect it would have on regional aspects...


People are dieing of starvation alreadly.



is it really worth attempting to stop them from KEEPing there already researched and gained weapons?


In this case putting an end an end to Kims regime is worth the effort.



they arent going off willy nilly attacking people without due course are they.


Do you really want to find out if your wrong ?




Allow a nuclear armed north korea to sit there... and shout rhetoric..
OR
You can force a naval blockade, one which they have said the ywould declare war over.


Gee thats an easy choice ignore the hotair that Kim blows and impose a naval blockade and cut off all aid.




I dont understand why we HAVE To do anything
why chose war, over the risk of war.
when you can have peace, with the risk of war.


The rewards far outweigh the risks in this case. Heres the thing a naval blockade combined with cutting off all aid to North Korea would have a postive effect. This kind of action may not have the same effect elsewhere for any number of reasons.

I would gambable that North Korea would try to apply pressure on the US via China and Russia rather then start a war over an econmic blockade. North Koreas nuclear program provides a good reason to impose the measures needed to put an end to Kims regime.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Yes, our government has failed before, and failed miserably. This is mainly because they saw us as trying to "bully" them around. There were no real "talks" that I am aware of, but if someone can prove me wrong I would like to see. We should try diplomacy, then try it some more, and then a few more times if there is still the possibility of thwarting a war.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Good points made by all.

Thankfuly, a U.S. naval blockade wouldn't be that spendy. The intent of such a policy...in the context of weak U.N. sanctions, is to catch the North Koreans in the act of sending nuclear technologies to other countries. the political benefits of such a "find" would be significant for the U.S. The gesture of the blockade itself, after a year or so, will also be significant for the U.S. because it will "prove" that they've kept North Korea from exporting nuclear technologies...by sea.

The whole point of American policy at this point is to be seen doing something proactive to the Western cause. U.N. sanctions in their current incarantion don't allow for a total halt of "stuff" that goes to and from North Korea by ship, save for weapons.

Any DPRK-sponsored nuclear proliferation that occurrs while the blockade is in place will be blamed on China. Think of this as a chess move in which your opponents Rook is put at risk. If the Chinese are seen to have allowed nuclear proliferation...



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Realistically, the only nation to which NK poses a credible military threat is South Korea.
Let the South Koreans take the lead. It's their behinds that are on the line, not ours.

In reality, behind all the overheated rhetoric on both sides, a North Korea with a few fission bombs is still an insignificant and backward entity compared to the United States, which has 10k+ fusion weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere we want in 30 minutes or less. Let them throw their tantrums, test their creaky missiles that fall into the ocean and their low yeild gun type bombs - there is very little else they can do without inviting total destruction.

[edit on 10/17/06 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Fundamentally, you may be right. How-ever, in the realm of politics, we could see a lot of bad karma if we just walked away from this.

Imagine what happens if we do just walk away from this. Freeze the assets in the U.S. Boot out their diplomats, and deny them any form of interaction with out bureaucracy. Suppose we just ignore them?

If they end up doing something unfortunate, most especially something that only a super-power could prevent or take steps against...We could be facing a much worse international situation.

What prevetns a regime that is overtly hostile from supplying our enemies with even the smallest and most primitive of nuclear devices? Suppose that "package" is delivered to somebody other than us? It would be too easy for our detractors to say, "Why didn't America do something...anything...to stop this?"

This is a cruddy situation. Doing nothing is worse than doing something. Even if our efforts are token and purely symbolic, atleast we ARE doing something....I hope.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join