North Korea to be attacked; U.S. Nuclear first strike "likely" - Trustable info?

reply to post by Myendica


I hear what you're saying, and I think we were doing a little of that. The deal was for them to lighten up on the nuke making and we give them money food and fuel, but then they did a 180 degree turn around.

They would make agreements with us and we sent them money/food/fuel in exchange to stop the nuke making. There would have been more goodies for them too if they followed through on their agreement.

We took them off of that terrorist list thing too, just as a sign of good faith. Then out of nowhere they start all this crap up again.

So how can you talk and deal with people like that? They lie constantly, break agreements, cheat.

There seems to be a power struggle going on. I think Kim has lost power.
Or he is trying a last ditch attempt to get what he wants.

I believe the schizophrenic behavior of N. Korea is not due to Kim being crazy, I think it is the result of constant power struggles of leadership between him and the military generals.

Originally posted by mckyle

As a result, it won't just be Washington mulling over the next move, there will be much consternation in Beijing over this situation too.

[

This is what I think too. It really is China's problem. The US is really at no threat from N. Korea right now (unless it sells stuff to a terrorist). But they are not directly a threat.

They're a threat to Japan.

It's in China's court right now.

reply to post by Electro38


We have 28K + troops stationed on the DMZ between NK and SK but yeah you're right they pose no threat to the US.


It's funny how many on here act like they've got it all figured out. NK is just saber rattling, nothing to see. No big deal. It's not our problem. Blah blah blah. Some of you need to get a clue. NK is a very SERIOUS threat to world peace. They have a very large military, lots of artillery/rockets/missiles pointed right at SK. I don't care how many nuclear subs, carriers, stealth bombers or what ever the hell else mickey mouse military arsenal we have in that area. Our military and government had no clue NK was going to do what they did. Caught everyone off guard. And wonder why this very serious situation is hardly making a 1 minute clip on main stream media? Because it's a very scary situation. In a matter of minutes NK could kill a hundred thousand people. And if you think Kim Jong isn't crazy enough to do it well you don't know what it's like for a feeble old man on death's door step wanting to go out with a bang. Hitler and many other monsters will be idolized for the rest of eternity. Why would someone like Kim not want a piece of that infamy?

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


I meant they are not a direct threat to our land (the US unless they give a nuke to a terrorist).
You have to ask the question, who is at risk. Yes we have troops there. People in S. Korea are at the greatest risk. The world would witness their instant destruction (N. Korea's destruction) if they took that route.

So who's at risk? And why do you think they're at risk?

(I believe the answer is only S. Korea and Japan, in the immediate future.)

Originally posted by Brainiac
Yeah that's what they'd do. It would be the same as F-15's bombing Germany in the 1940's...

Hi brainiac,

The Germans deployed plenty of high tech weapons during the second world war and that didn't give them victory in the end; something like how the USA with all it's high tech weapons started a limited war against North Vietnam and a total war against South Vietnam and still managed to lose control over the country in the end.

Being able to inflict disproportionate casualties by means of superior weapons is not a specific guareentee of success.

With the U.S. Tactical Surgical Strike ability, any "farm" I mean facility North Korea has could be pinpoint decimated without so much as anything else damaged 5000 ft from ground zero...

Not borne out by the last couple of wars,

"WASHINGTON--Data released piecemeal by U.S. and European military authorities are finally painting a well-rounded portrait of NATO's bombardment of Yugoslavia--and showing how limited its effects have been.
The figures indicate that while more than five weeks of pounding have badly damaged important parts of the nation's military infrastructure, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic retains many of his field forces and air defenses, and much of his fuel and ammunition. His forces generally can communicate with each other, maneuver and arrange for resupply.
The Yugoslav army still has 80% to 90% of its tanks, 75% of its most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and 60% of its MIG fighter planes, according to official estimates released during the past week. And although NATO warplanes have blown up the major rail links into Kosovo, five of the province's eight major roads remain at least partially passable, according to British officials.
Yugoslav troops in Kosovo still have nearly half their resupply capability, the Pentagon estimated last week, and Milosevic's military has been able to maintain--or perhaps even expand--the force of 40,000 it had there when the air campaign began March 24.

Despite NATO's ability to strike big, immobile targets with precision weapons, its warplanes have failed to attack 80% of the Yugoslav army's barracks. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces have also left untouched, or only lightly damaged, 80% of Yugoslavia's ammunition depots, officials say.

Despite the damage to many of its best planes, the MIG fighters, the Yugoslav air force still has 380 of its 450 aircraft. Eight of the country's 17 airfields have not been struck, and six more have sustained only moderate or light damage.
Although Clark declared that the Serbs' integrated air defense system is now "ineffective" overall, it remains a powerful defensive weapon: It has kept NATO planes generally at altitudes above 15,000 feet, too high to most effectively hit Milosevic's field forces.

www.aeronautics.ru...

Despite the heavy bombardment, NATO was surprised to find afterwards that the Serbian armed forces had survived in such good order. Around 50 Serbian aircraft were lost but only 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 artillery pieces.[12] Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels. Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000ft (5,000m), making accurate bombing much more difficult. Towards the end of the war, it was claimed that carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft had caused huge casualties among Serbian troops stationed along the Kosovo–Albania border. Careful searching by NATO investigators found no evidence of any such large-scale casualties.

www.answers.com...

Before the US could muster similar forces, not trying to discount the very significant South Korea and US forces there, to those that failed to do much damage to the Yugoslav forces many hundreds of thousands will be dead. There is no way to 'blitz' the North Koreans out of the war and if you are too succesful and contemplate a invasion well then that might get the Chinese as 'involved' as they got last time and that will have really dire consequences.

I think the North Koreans will probably just keep taking the insults and the blockades and keep on trying to undo all the damage done to their society and economy back in the 90's.

The U.S. bombers would not even be seen, nor be in any type of threat, from North Korea's World War II era technology...

I beg to differ but that's immaterial when a conventional air campaign against the North Koreans is doomed to failure and massive casualties in both sides. The USAF strategic bomber force isn't what it used to be, in size and sortie rates, and smart weapons isn't much good when you are presented with tens of thousands of targets and many more decoys.

Stellar

Originally posted by SaraThustra
Iraq most certainly did have WMD's - they used them against the Kurds killing tens of thousands of people.

WMD does not mean nuclear - it means nuclear OR biological OR chemical weapon of mass destruction.

Hi (Z)Sarathustra,

Iraq did as you say have chemical weapons and the US knew that because it helped to supply some and supplied some of the rest. These weapons were used in Iran and the Kurds at a time when the US were actively aiding Iraq's war against Iran so certainly it's totally hypocritical to say that the US government is against nations possessing such weapons when they clearly just want to see it owned and used by it's 'friends' on it's current chosen enemies.

These weapons were also long past their sell by dates ( chemical and biological don't often last a decade, even when perfectly constituted) and were all understood to be either dismantled ( weapons inspectors after original war) or basically inert by the mid 90's. There was no specific evidence of either old stashed WOMD or a effort to reoconstitute them. If you have found evidence that suggests otherwise , despite the Bush governments admissions to the contrary, i would certainly like to see it.

Stellar

Originally posted by Electro38
So who's at risk? And why do you think they're at risk?
(I believe the answer is only S. Korea and Japan, in the immediate future.)

Electro38,

I read your post and gave it some thought. This is what I’ve come up with.

1. Who is at risk? The one reacting the strongest right now is Japan. Hillary Clinton said just yesterday that we would protect Japan and South Korea from any attacks. The people of South Korea are all at risk due to the massive amount of troops in North Korea along the DMZ. That’s two entire nations at risk. Technically, their missiles could hit as far as Alaska and Hawaii, but I doubt they’d target those sites.

2. Why do I think they are at risk? I’ve been there. Did my time. I know what it’s like to constantly drill for NBC attack. It’s not fun. It’s a very real possibility. North Korea has both Biological and Chemical weapons that can easily reach both Japan and South Korea. (PDF - See Page 20)

3. Why do we need to be involved if our land isn’t significantly at risk (AK & HI aside)? It’s because we have protection agreements with Japan and South Korea. We promised to protect them (though at the time we thought we’d be protecting them from the U.S.S.R.)

So to answer your question, you’re right. The two primary parties that are threatened are South Korea and Japan. We are involved because we’ve agreed to protect them.

reply to post by Electro38


alright i hear ya on that. i suppose there isnt much to do, except a tougher embargo and restrictions. i just thought from the beginning we should have treated it differently, since like, i dont know, 8 to 15 years ago. we always seem to treat countries like crap and expect them to accept our rules when they get a little power. we shouldnt tread on weaker countries as much as we have. because everyone know the little twirps eventually get their big brothers.

Without the aid, support, and generiousity of the United States, these people would be even worse shape than they are now. Look how hollywood goes to these countries and praises them...and at the same time, denounces the US as a country which is mean, etc.... There is a reason why the US has the best quality of life. Go to China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran, or Venezuela and openly complain about the regimes....what would happen?

reply to post by Myendica

Originally posted by bpg131313
I read your post and gave it some thought. This is what I’ve come up with.

Hi bpg, ditto on the first line.

1. Who is at risk? The one reacting the strongest right now is Japan. Hillary Clinton said just yesterday that we would protect Japan and South Korea from any attacks.

Why should she want to involve the US in the affairs of other countries when both the current interventions are going totally off course? Japan could have operational nuclear weapons ( dozens, perhaps hundreds) within a couple of years if allowed to protect themselves and could easily and effectively expand their military forces to deal with any current of future threat from regional forces. The Japanese could also buy modern ABM defenses from at least a few countries negating any threat from North Korean ICBM's. In fact it's few patriot batteries might perhaps suffice even if i don't have much faith in that particular weapon system.

The people of South Korea are all at risk due to the massive amount of troops in North Korea along the DMZ. That’s two entire nations at risk. Technically, their missiles could hit as far as Alaska and Hawaii, but I doubt they’d target those sites.

South Korea is far better armed and armored than the North Koreans and would very likely gain the outside support from countries other than the US ( if i just stopped butting in) to keep it in the war. Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia and a number of others would have a vested interest in supporting a South Korean resistance no matter what the US decide to do.

2. Why do I think they are at risk? I’ve been there. Did my time. I know what it’s like to constantly drill for NBC attack. It’s not fun. It’s a very real possibility. North Korea has both Biological and Chemical weapons that can easily reach both Japan and South Korea. (PDF - See Page 20)

So what? The South Koreans have come to love their 'independence' are now heavily armed and well trained and very likely to defend their section of the peninsula very well. Despite the fact that they had no choice in the matter back in 1946, when they were prevented from holding/participating in the free elections that would very likely have led to the election of Kim, there isn't much chance of that now so why the continuing US presence there? Do they wish to once again involve the American public by placing American soldiers in the line of fire?

3. Why do we need to be involved if our land isn’t significantly at risk (AK & HI aside)? It’s because we have protection agreements with Japan and South Korea.

Why sign a protection agreement with a country you know has no legal mandate to exist? That you knowingly created by flaunting a UN mandate to hold elections for all of Korea? It's the very same thing that was done with Taiwan when the US pretend that Taiwan WAS China as if those who fled China represented China. This is imperial logic and while Americans have certainly paid a price in blood and lost prosperity continuing along this imperialist&interventionist path will make the consequences increasingly dire.

We promised to protect them (though at the time we thought we’d be protecting them from the U.S.S.R.)

As if the USSR ( or shall we say 'the communist'; that's scarier) were a threat to those countries back in 1950, 1970 or really in 1990. The US signed these treaties to keep Korea divided in the same way it has kept China divided by creating that aircraft carrier called Taiwan.

So to answer your question, you’re right. The two primary parties that are threatened are South Korea and Japan. We are involved because we’ve agreed to protect them.

They have been more than able to protect themselves for decades and in the case of Japan the US did not wish to see it rearmed much faster than it did as it could easily once again become a true rival to US power in at least South East Asia. Japan could conceivably operate a navy and air force five or ten times it's current size but since the US tax payer were forced to pick up the tab they didn't have to and spent it on services and infrastructure that makes America look like a developing nation.

Perhaps i should have just asked WHY Japan and South Korea feels threatened? Perhaps because they are forced to host US naval stations, air bases and not insignificant troop numbers? But that isn't 'fair' as as clearly the North Koreans are just paranoid; the US would never invade a sovereign nation based on attacks that never happened or other trumped up charges.

Can we not all rather be afraid of the one country that has consistent record of invading others in the last half century? I suppose that is just too much to ask.

Stellar

reply to post by bpg131313


I agree. I was just saying that the US is not directly and immediately being threatened, I mean our land and our civilians.

Our troops at the DMZ and out Japanese/South Korean friends definitely are.

I just wondered, since the US (and probably some other countries) have the tech capabilities to see what NoKo is doing on the ground via spy satellites then how could they even come close to posing a real threat to anyone?

We know whenever they start up a nuke reactor, or when they might be preparing a missile for launching,, etc. If they decided to do something stupid wouldn't we know in advance?

And don't they know that we would know?

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Electro38

 

alright i hear ya on that. i suppose there isnt much to do, except a tougher embargo and restrictions. i just thought from the beginning we should have treated it differently, since like, i dont know, 8 to 15 years ago. we always seem to treat countries like crap and expect them to accept our rules when they get a little power. we shouldnt tread on weaker countries as much as we have. because everyone know the little twirps eventually get their big brothers.

Yeah, it would be really nice if we could have talked to them and had things work out. It almost seemed like it was working due to assistant secretary Hill's work over there. Facilities were being dismantled (or so we were told), they had a classical music concert, and then all of this happened.

Some of the smallest countries in the world, have no nukes but are peaceful and have the highest standard of living in the world. Norway, Switzerland come to mind.

Why can't NoKo, Iran, etc. look at those countries as role models?

reply to post by StellarX


StellarX,

It’s good to hear from you. Let’s dive into what was said.

You made good observations regarding Japan. Having several Japanese friends myself, I often times get emails from them telling me what they are hearing around Japan. When it comes to the affairs of Japan, we have been involved ever since General Douglas MacArthur had his hands in the Occupation of Japan. You may remember from history class that he also led the UN forces against North Korea in 1950-1951. Japan has had us protecting them since then. It’s a routine I suppose you can say. We also owe them a lot of money, so perhaps this is their way of using our debt to them as leverage. I know Japan could put together a top-notch nuclear program if they wanted to. Japan already has extensive PATRIOT systems brought in by the US. The odds of an incoming missile getting through are low. The problem today is the pace at which things can escalate. A large scale missile barrage could occur over the course of two hours. That’s all they need...two hours! Things can get to be looking similar to your avatar in that very brief amount of time.

South Korea is in the same boat as I just discussed. We’re not talking days. We’re talking immediate. When I was there I was told that five minutes is all the time we have from launch to impact. Five minutes! I’m sure that other countries would protest a military action, but those are simply words, nothing more. The North Koreans could be in Seoul within two hours if they took their time. I know that South Korea is very heavily armored. I know it would be one hell of a fight, but it would be a quick one. It would go something like this. You go to bed at midnight and see that nothing is happened. You wake up at 5 a.m. the next morning and all you see on the news is that 45 Million are reportedly dead in Korea and that counter attacks are ongoing. War these days is far faster than even it was during the Gulf Wars to the point it literally is unnerving. We are there as a deterrent only. North Korea knows we have extensive reach back capability. I fear that Ki Jong-Il no longer cares. I don’t know why American’s are still in South Korea. I honestly don’t. To be honest, I think it’s a legacy thing. Sadly, it isn’t our call, it’s the President’s.

Your comment regarding the USSR, or Communists as you called them, was rather interesting. There was a point, as Senator McCarthy can attest to, when Communism was extremely feared. Proliferation of the Communist Ideology throughout Asia was a very scary thing back then. We look at it today and basically shrug our shoulders and wonder what all the fuss was about, but back then, it was a very serious matter. We were in Korea because we didn’t want the “Communists” to take over all of Korea, especially with those Chinese folks eyeballing Korea so closely. The aircraft carrier named Taiwan made me laugh. Thanks for that, I needed it. Once again, I think it all comes down to ideology. We keep Taiwan as Capitalistic as possible hoping that China will have it rub off on them, and it does actually appear to be working to some extent.

When it comes to why South Korea and Japan feel threatened, I think it’s because of the unpredictable nature of Kim Jong-Il. He’s demonstrated the capability of nukes and they fear it’s not in order to keep them locked away in a bunker somewhere. They fear it’s for use against them.

Now to turn to the Devil’s Advocate (something I particularly enjoy). If I were Kim Jong-Il and knew I was standing next to my death bed, though not necessarily in it, I’ll tell you what I’d do. I’d take the next nuke I build, put it in the best ICBM I have for satellite launch. I’d put it on a course to fly over the US, I’d get that thing upwards of 200 miles above Denver and I’d detonate the thing. An EMP would flash all of the US (And parts of Mexico and Canada), effectively sending the US back to the days before electricity for at least a couple years. Sure, I’d be blown up for it, but you have to admit, from a Devil’s Advocate point of view, it does put a smile on your face.

reply to post by CZBR51


Did you actually read the comments on this guy's blog? Those people are crazier than outhouse rats, and I wouldn't put much stock in their "reporting."

Originally posted by Heisenberg
Without the aid, support, and generiousity of the United States, these people would be even worse shape than they are now.

Hi Heisenberg,

In the same way the US supported or aided dozens of terrorist groups ( fighting against popularly elected governments) in dozens of countries in the last half century or how the US national security state and generously invaded and occupied, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining bases in the countries it 'liberated' back in 1944/45?

Look how hollywood goes to these countries and praises them...and at the same time, denounces the US as a country which is mean, etc....

So you are suggesting that hollywood on balance paints a unvourable picture of the thousand or more 'bases' the US has all over the world or paints the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in darker colors than they should be? How did you arrive at this conclusion when the sanctions and wars against iraq has resulted in somewhere between 1.5 and 3 million dead iraqi's in the last two decades? What positive things can you think of saying about such a genocidal campaign that Hollyword isn't mostly saying in suggesting that the US government might be doing wrong but means well?

There is a reason why the US has the best quality of life.

It doesn't have the best quality of life and in fact when it comes to those measurements in general it does terribly as compared to other industrialized nations.

Go to China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran, or Venezuela and openly complain about the regimes....what would happen?

Well under even the worse case scenarious ( the manage to paint you as a western agent of some sort; which isn't always without merit) you may get locked up or assasinated but then no one has argued that those countries are 'better'. Planes explode and car 'accidents' happen in democracies as well but yes, clearly there are no political assasinations or political prisoners in the west because ,well, they keep telling us that we are living in free societies where such things doesn't happen.

It mostly comes down to what various governments can fool you into believing about your fellow citizens and as can be shown even in so called 'free' societies too many 'free' people will condone torture as long as the government says that the people they are torturing are 'terrorist'. When you look deeper you will find far more similarities than differences , just don't expect this to be widely discussed on CNN or FOX.

Stellar

reply to post by CZBR51


Bullcrap. It will never happen. Good imagination, though.

Originally posted by mckyle

Extract From The Australian Newspaper

"The US-led UN Command in South Korea yesterday rejected the Korean People's Army repudiation of the armistice agreement and said it remained binding on all parties, including the North Koreans. The regime said on Wednesday that it was no longer bound by the armistice, that legally a state of war had resumed on the Korean peninsula and that it would attack any force that tried to halt or inspect its shipping. "The armistice has served as the legal basis for the ceasefire in Korea for over 55 years and significantly contributes to stability in the region," a UN Command spokesman said. "The armistice remains in force and is binding on all signatories, including North Korea. The UN Command will adhere to the terms of the armistice and the mechanisms that support it."

I still stand by my initial claim. The armistice is still intact. It's dissolution can only come about by joint declaration or recommencement of hostilities by all parties.

I'm sorry, but that statement by the United Nations has got to be one of the dumbest statements I have heard in a long time. I mean please correct me if I am wrong, but… Did the UN say that North Korea has the right to have nuclear weapons? No? …Hmm… They have demanded, have they not, that North Korea has no right, right? With that in mind and the recent history this world has just witnessed… did their ridiculous statements actually have any weight whatsoever on the truth? The historic truthful answer is… No they didn't!
With that truth being restated, let me now state this… The UN does not get to decide if that armistice is still legal or not. Only North Korea, South Korea, and The United States has that authority, individually. North Korea officially stated it no longer applies. Anyone who says different is playing fairytale politics and is possibly causing this situation in Korea to ratchet up even more by that absolutely ridiculous statement… They blew up a nuclear bomb in defiance of the UN. Do you people really think telling North Korea they don’t have the right to do anything, is even remotely advisable in light of their recent actions? You don’t tell people who have a complex they can’t do something, because they will prove you wrong, just like North Korea has done!


The UN only has authority if a nation allows for it. Or, if there is a powerful military ready to enforce those rules. Just saying the armistice still exists simply because the UN, and then others claim that is the facts, with recent history as our guide for truth, I’m sorry but IMO, that is the epitome of stupidity.


Playing the devils advocate for a second... I could argue the point that the UN said that to give North Korea a way out of that crazy statement. As if, if everyone pretends that it still exists, then it still exists. So only for that reason and that reason alone could the UN hope to create some kind of peaceful solution, by simply pretending. (Or to put it another way, that UN statement is like a grown up, “I want a do over that’s not fair” … childish statement.) Outside of that, if the UN thinks they have anything else to say on the matter, or if their statement holds any weight whatsoever, well... As North Korea has proven… that is complete foolishness.

--Charles Marcello



[edit on 30-5-2009 by littlebunny]

Originally posted by CZBR51

North Korea to be attacked; U.S. Nuclear first strike "likely" - Trustable info?

turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com

Washington, DC (TRN) -- North Korea yesterday withdrew from the Armistice that halted the Korean War. Today, official Washington is abuzz with not so secret "Top Secret" plans for the United States to make a limited nuclear first strike to wipe out the North Korean threat in one fell swoop.

Russia has been alerted to "make plans" for radiation fallout in its eastern border area......

(visit the link for the full news article)

Here's a scary thought... what if ol' Kim reads this possibly fake news article and decides to nuke S. Korea in his own pre-emptive strike? If this is fake I think the person should be put up on charges of some kind and fined some money at the very least.
Does anyone else have any feelings about this?

"The US "will not accept" a nuclear-armed North Korea, the country's defence secretary has told a meeting of his Asian counterparts. "

This news is very interesting and does show that the stance that the US is taking is now clearly being spelt out.(watch the news clip on this link)
news.bbc.co.uk...

The US "will not accept" a nuclear-armed North Korea, the country's defence secretary has told a meeting of his Asian counterparts.

Speaking in Singapore, Robert Gates said Washington would "not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target".

Earlier, the US said activity in the North could indicate plans for a new long-range missile test.

At the end of that news clip she says that there are signs of activity in regards to another LONG range missile test.My question is ,how do they know a test from an armed launch at a neighboring country?At what point would the us, japan and S Korea step in to remove that threat?

[edit on 30-5-2009 by tarifa37]

Originally posted by CZBR51

Washington, DC (TRN) -- North Korea yesterday withdrew from the Armistice that halted the Korean War. Today, official Washington is abuzz with not so secret "Top Secret" plans for the United States to make a limited nuclear first strike to wipe out the North Korean threat in one fell swoop.

Russia has been alerted to "make plans" for radiation fallout in its eastern border area......

I think we are getting a trifle too alarmist! The media needs to tone down the rhetoric a little. All countries have contingency plans for various war scenarios.

It's not only North Korea that figures in such contingency planning of the U.S. but also Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Russia, and China. These plans were made years ago, but are updated on a regular basis keeping the dynamic nature of the geopolitical situation and threat analysis in mind.

America will never nuke North Korea in a first strike, as the stakes are too high, as much of their strategic assets there would be destroyed in a retaliatory second strike by North Korea for which they have the capability.

And it's not going to be limited to a counter force strike by North Korea, but a counter city strike on South Korea's population centres resulting in horrific consequences!

The U.S. would choose the option of a surprise first strike ONLY if they are absolutely sure of initial destruction of every nuclear weapon and its delivery system. In other words total degradation of their capability of a nuclear response. This isn't possible and so even thinking of a nuclear first strike on North Korea is a hare brained idea!