North Korean aggression

[y_feldblum]

"Pirates - you shall ph34r m3, the g0d1y n1nja, or you shall be banging your heads against brick walls!"

Whatever happened to throwing-stars and walking the plank?

[Roark4Prez2112]

They don't have emoticons for that.

.....AND this isn't a laughing matter.

[AutoJC]

We need to exercise brinkmanship against Kim Il Jung. This jerk is a real blowhard. He knows he can bluff us because he did just that with Clinton, and he appears to be succeeding with Bush.

If he violated any agreements he made towards the end of the Korean War regarding deployment of weapons we need to call him on it. We need to maintain a presence in the pacific that emphasizes heavy striking capability which does not require the use of infantry. This way, if Kim decided to construct a nuke plant that can produce weapons-grade nuclear energy we can threaten to blow such plant off the face of the earth if he doesn't take it down within a quick, prescribed period.

Brinkmanship did work with Russia. North Korea is far less of a military power than Russia.

[Praxus]

There is one last aspect that you guys are forgetting. There are 10,000 pieces of artillery fortified along the North Korean border.

Seoul, the capital city of South Korea, is 35 miles from the DMZ, well within range of the NK long range artillery.

Actually despite popular belief only around 800 Howitzers/MRLS mostly Koksan Guns and 240mm MLRS rockets could theoreticly hit Seoul. The problem for the DPRK is mountain peaks intercept the arcs of the artillery when fired at it's maximum range(around 45% angle but depends on wind and other weather factors). Don't get me wrong they certainly could hit Seouls Northern Suburbs but they would have to move their artillery up so they can fire on a higher arc to hit downtown Seoul and the majority of it's population.

The fact is we can defeat North Korea and we should not tollerate their BS. We should use all weapons in our arsenal including Nuclear Weapons.

Praxus, I can't see how violating a military law, of the UCMJ, and a violation of OPSEC (look them up on the internet to quench your knwledge) can be warranted as "funny." I have a SECRET security clearance, which you can look up as well and see what that entails. I could furthermore prove my credibility by emailing you all of my military info.

You are claiming that you are more knowledgable by making a claim you are either not allowed to prove or can't prove. So your just trying to gain credibility by claiming you have secret knowledge that no one else has.

I am no expert on military technology by any means, but I see a possible candidate in the following - http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Apr1996/...-0000U-001.html & another article here on it - http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-00g.html

Yah I read about that, however it is not reasonable to believe you could knock down the ammount of artillery we are talking about in a DPRK attack on South Korea.

It would be a VERY effective active defense against Anti-Shipping Missiles and Ballistic Missiles.

[LucentBrave]

LMAO.... I give up. This is like watching comedy central.

[Zirjin]

Looking at a map of the region, I fail to see where those mentioned mountain peaks are. Seoul is on the west of the peninsula. All the giant mountain ranges are on the East side. Artillary can be stuck north of Seoul without much stuff blocking their line of sight.

A possibility however remains that the maps I am looking at, are low resolution and thus not showing all the detail that should be looked at. If you find a high res map on the net that refutes my point, I will be very curious to see it.

---

I like that laser technology because a single beam can destroy several artillary shells across the sky in a single pass if it was equipped with the right software. The beams are at light speed so it can track at short notice multiple targets.

It has a bit of a cooldown time in it's present form which is it's only downfall.

If there are a lot of those emplacements, they mightn't get all the shells, heck, they might get only 20% of them, it is still an amount that could reduce the casualties and damage to infrastructure done, which will help sell the South Koreans onto the idea of taking on the North.

[LucentBrave]

Praxus, since you aren't bound to military law, please provide your resources, references, and proof. I would like to see where you are getting your numbers from. I have been to the DMZ. I have a piece of the old wire fence that they are replacing to prove it. I have seen there artillery. Now I ask once again: before making a claim, let me see your proof. You're entitled to provide yours, while I am not.

Although the CIA World Fact Book is great info, most of the sites that I use for military demographics require my social security number and a password. I wish I could provide you with the information to access the knowlege on the subject at hand, but I can't. Have I proven anything, by saying this? No. I am stating true things that have been made public to back myself up. Now, let me see where your getting your info.

[LucentBrave]

Here you are Praxus. Staright from the commander, USFK- General LaPorte.

Just some more numbers to prove yours wrong. Courtesy of DOD Defense Link News service.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/n0..._200404016.html

This site is legit. They are a DOD media service. They don't make up anything that they report. You can say that you don't believe it Praxus, but that does not mean these numbers are false. If you were to suggest as much, you wouldn't be in this forum.

[oldsalt]

Praxus: You throw around a lot of numbers, without providing any references or links, and then you sneer at Lucent? If you had a modicum of military savvy, you'd know that he isn't just trying to blow smoke. My brother worked in Naval Intelligence for over 30 years -- and still works as a consultant to the Navy. We discuss many things, but he has never, in all these years, told me anything he shouldn't. He's very blunt in stating what he can and can't talk about. It is one thing to disagree, but I can't say that I give much weight to what you say over Lucent. At least he sounds right to these military ears. Having friends in the military doesn't give you any particular insights or special knowledge. It gives you the opinions of whatever particular rate and grade you're talking to. Using a page from your own book of bad manners, why should we believe you?

Anyway, as Lucent pointed out, we are having a discussion based on a lot of assumptions, 99% of which are probably hogwash. The only point I wanted to make was that it is wrong to suggest that we take any action without having everything in place to back up that action. One needs only a knowledge of history to understand that.

I would like to know, however, how anyone could say that it would be ethically proper to bomb SOUTH Korea. If, as was stated, we ought to do so because they are appeasers, who do we go after next? France, Japan, Canada, Germany, Turkey? The United States of America?

[LucentBrave]

Thank you, Old Salt. I was wondering when someone would understand.

3rd largest army in the world. Not a threat hmm....? Maybe not, if we gathered ALL of our military and launched an attack.

Praxus, remember one thing: just becuase you HEAR or READ one thing, it doesn't erase the knowledge or experience that I have on the subject at hand. I've been to South Korea. Have you? I've been to the DMZ. Have you? I do not lie. I don't have a reason to make excuses or to lie for myself. I am an objectivist. I thought that I have proven that a while ago.

Although, no need to prove myself exists. What I have heard, I discount until I hear the truth on the matter at hand. What I see- well, that's another matter. I don't imagine things subjectivist style, as you have stated that I have done (numerous times).

Please. Provide your references and proof. I am very curious as to where you are getting your very OUTDATED numbers from. According to Objectiviwsm, you can't produce existents and reference numbers to them. Please provide your proof. If you don't, I could care less. I am quite happy with what I know. I could care even less more if you believe me.

And bomb South Korea? That is the dumbest thing that I have heard of. In many ways, they are more free than the United States. Of course, My consciousness could have fabricated this as well Show me proof, somewhere that South Korea fabricated Kantism. I plan on moving there when I am finished with my second tour.

[AisA]

LucentBrave, could a flight of B-2 stealth bombers not deliver enough first-strike nuclear weapons to neutralize the NK forces?

[LucentBrave]

I'm sure that we could- if there anti-aircraft artillery are used poorly. However, does that get rid of our problem? The United States still has no idea where all of the underground nuclear facilities exist. Nor have we developed a capable conventional weapon to preform the task of destroying underground nuke facilities. Look it up if you don't believe me. Bunkerbusters, are NOT suitable to such a task.

In order to get somewhere, you have to know where you're going first.

[AisA]

What is your proposal for dealing with the problem, LucentBrave?

[LucentBrave]

My Proposal? Please don't nominate me for Secretary of Defense just yet. I haven't come up with one yet. It isn't my job to do so.

ONCE AGAIN, if it were my choice to decide, we should have concrete info, before we do anything. Such as: develop weapons capable of destroying underground nuclear facilities.

Evacuating South Korea is a big thing. They only recently started excercises at that task in case such an emergency should arise.

We should also wait until we have ACCURATE numbers and compare military demographics before we do anything. I'm sure that it has already been done, as we haven't taken action yet- and everyone's opinion here (including my own) would have no effect on anything anyway.

I really don't think that NK will do anything until they get what they want. However, when they run out of what they NEED (food and money), and China, Japan, and their other providers decide to jump ship on provisions, they will be nothing more than a HUGE rat backed into a corner. And what do HUGE rats do in such circumstances?

They fight back. They get desperate and untilize ALL weapons (nukes) and tools (once again, nukes) at there disposal.

[AisA]

LucentBrave, you seem to be saying that you have sufficient, first-hand information to refute everyone else's suggestions as being impractical, but not enough first-hand information to know what is practical. Is that correct?

[LucentBrave]

No. I have merely stated what I have gathered my info from what I believe is a highly credible source( the US government, my employer). I never said nor indicated that they could not be wrong. None of their numbers have been proven or validated. However, I will take their word over someone else' ( Praxus's) out-dated claims and numbers.

Let's get down to the point of the matter. We are trying to come up with a premature conclusion to a non-existent activity. Which would be surprise attacks on NK. How could we do anything of the sort unless we are sure that the methods and procedures, matched with ACCURATE military demographics and numbers, have been fully realized at this time? We have yet to develop the capabilites to destroy UNKNOWN locations of underground nuclear facilities. It's like entering a spelling bea without knowing how to spell.

Furthermore, if we could do so, it would have been done long before now. We have proven what we can do ( Iraq) and we have proven what we cannot and yet do ( NK).

I don't understand, nor see why this topic is so important. Yes, it is a good question to debate over. But with what proven and validated info? No Axioms exist in the undiscovered equation of a possible NK war. I give up. It's not that difficult to understand. Use your head, and the basic principles of Objectivism, and this question should have never been asked in the first place.

Not enough info has been collected and compared to launch such an attack. Do you think that Bush can just wave a magic wand and make it happen? LMAO

I'm sure he would have done so by now. Leave these decisions up to those in charge of making these decisions. I don't like whose hands these decisions rest upon, but I can't change that either can I? If I could wave a magic wand in order to do so, believe me, I would.

[AisA]

Well, LucentBrave, the fact that President Bush has not taken action certainly does not convince me that no action is possible.

And, the fact that a cornered rat may fight back viciously would seem to argue in favor of a surprise strike, would it not?

I for one am sick of seeing America appease what we ought to destroy -- and while that doesn't qualify as an axiom, it is a principle applicable to this situation. Granted, I do not know all the details of what the destruction of NK entails -- but I do know that a policy of "let's keep feeding the alligator in the hope that he will eat us last" is not practical.

If we do not have enough information to launch an attack, don't you think we should get it?

[LucentBrave]

We are not "feeding the alligator." Japan, and China are.

How do you propose we speed up the process of getting the info we need. I am surprised-no wait, maybe I'm not so surprised to think that you would suggest that myself and the rest of the military has been sitting on their ass and not getting such info.

Do you think that we are sitting around waiting for the info to come to us? Do you think we come to such info within one day? I'll just wave my magic wand and the info need will pop up in my head to utilize to our advantage. I'll be the Bobby Fisher of the possible NK war because you said I can. I could have sworn that I worked my ass off this past week, but I guess I didn't because you're implying that the military sits on their lazy ass and does no such thing.

Analyze your questions and think them through before you ask them please.

So you're suggesting that we destroy millions of BRAINWASHED people who had no choice in the matter of being brainwashed? Are you suggesting that we go in and murder innocent men, women, and children who want nothing more than to get out of NK? They don't have the option to take a luxurious cruise, or to fly to Amsterdam. They can't leave their country. They will be used as human shields for an army which they choose not to defend. You think Sadam Hussein was ruthless? It has been stated and proven that Mr. Kim is far more ruthless than Saddam and Bin Laden combined have been and will ever be.

Wow, I thought I was defending your freedom and human rights. That's what you opted to pay me for. I guess I don't do a damn thing. Because you say so.

If I were a subjectivist, that would be so. I don't need your permission to do my job. I don't need your assurance for a job well done. I don't need your care packages for a job well done. I signed a contract to defend your freedom and rights. Make excuses for that statement and sugar-coat it all. I will honor that contract until it is up. I know I do the best that I can to fight for freedom and human rights. What do I care if someone doesn't think that I do or not? So you don't appreciate the work I do. You don't appreciate the freedom I provide. Okay. You don't approve of your rights being protected. Okay. Then move out of America. Move to some country which doesn't provide these these things and taxes the hell out of you in order to provide these services for you. Money doesn't just pop in out of the very thin air which we breathe. You do have a choice in the matter.

You should read the "Sword of Truth" series by Terry Goodkind. He is an avid Objectivist, and writes fantasy based on Objectivist principles. He also covers a lot of current things that Ayn Rand cannot cover since she is dead.

I don't know what else to tell you guys. I guess my point of view wasn't welcome here. You just shot it down with your own un-proven banter without taking the time to listen to it. All the while I'm considering and weighing what you told me.

[oldsalt]

A is A: I understand your frustrations, and I share them.

For instance, my first reaction to the barbarity perpetrated in Falluja was that we ought to immediately introduce the Sunni triangle to a MOAB. Would that be the correct response? Depends on what your purpose is. Have we put all of this effort, money, time, and lives towards utterly smashing the Iraqi people? Or, are we attempting to bring the country to a state where it is no longer a threat to us? If the former, then when we go to crush the terrorists, we ought to do so from the air, with no regard for the deaths of the majority of the population who back us. Bomb them and leave them to hell. If, however, your goals are long term and have to do with strategic goals covering a wide area, you take a longer view to determine how to answer such a horror.

Number one, you would never get the US military to contenence such an action. They are not goose-stepping, "I only take orders," Nazis, no matter what the world, and many of our own people, may say. bin Laden and his bunch operate according to the code of death, not us. We don't kill people unless it is absolutely necessary. Even the bombs dropped on Japan were done so because the calculated casualty figures of a ground invasion were astronomically high. Japan was mortally wounded and would not have won, but they, too, had a code of death that dictated that they die trying. Our purpose in dropping the bombs was to limit death and destruction by causing just enough to shock them into surrender. It worked.

The kinds of solutions I've seen offered here have been tried over and over again in the history of mankind. It doesn't matter what the level of technology is at any particular time; technology changes, people don't. History teaches us that we will not ensure our safety or the continuation of our civilization by annihilation. (And please don't bring up Carthage. I'm not talking about wars and battles when I speak of history, but the consequences of wars and battles over time.)

Religion's greatest crime has been the creation of mounds of corpses to prove their truth. I'm not against war, or doing what is necessary to protect and defend myself. I do not think, however, that religion's methods are the one's I care to emmulate. We will never rid ourselves of war. But we need to understand that a superior body count isn't the same thing as a victory. At best, it is a temporary rest between battles. We need to think. We need to act as adults who think and not as children who merely lash out in anger.

Ask yourself this: Did Ragnar murder the crews aboard the ships he pirated? Did the shruggers go out and deliberately murder the moochers and looters of their property? Did any of them ever show a general contempt for human life?

Ragnar came up with a way to retrieve their stolen property without having to murder everyone in sight. The Galt's Gulch Gang rendered the looter's weapons worthless. And, of course, it was the sanctity of man's life which drove them, not comtempt.

[Praxus]

So you're suggesting that we destroy millions of BRAINWASHED people who had no choice in the matter of being brainwashed?

They have the CAPACITY to reason, they choose not too. They are not our moral responsibility.

North Korea does not have have 500,000 Special Forces. It is estimated to have 100,000.

They do not have ANYWHERE near the capability to deliver 100,000 troops behind enemy lines. They could get perhaps a few thousand but it would be pretty hard to hide them and their impact on the outcome of the war would be insignificant.

Whenever people talk about North Korea they bring up their Special Forces, but the fact is they aren't special.

[AisA]

Oldsalt, if you read back through my posts you will see that I never advocated the massacre of civilians. I just asked LucentBrave -- who claims to have access to military information the rest of us do not and whose opinion is thus particularly valuable -- what he thought the best approach would be. He consistently shoots down all the suggested courses of action, so I just asked this question:

LucentBrave, you seem to be saying that you have sufficient, first-hand information to refute everyone else's suggestions as being impractical, but not enough first-hand information to know what is practical. Is that correct?

Shortly after that post the forum apparently began malfunctioning because I missed the post where someone said LucentBrave wasn't doing his job and he needed our approval and care packages and we don't care about our rights and we ask questions that shouldn't be brought up and we act like children and not adults and we should massacre large numbers of brainwashed children and all that stuff. I'm glad I missed it because it sounds off-topic.

[Richard_Halley]

My Proposal? Please don't nominate me for Secretary of Defense just yet. I haven't come up with one yet. It isn't my job to do so.

That is the most intelligent thing written in this whole thread. We here do not have enough knowledge of the situation to make an accurate assessment. All we can do is decide that something needs to be done about NK, and that it must be swift, and with sufficient force to render North Korea incapable of any sort of attack. We do not have the information necessary to make the decision of how to go about it.

LucentBrave, you seem to be saying that you have sufficient, first-hand information to refute everyone else's suggestions as being impractical, but not enough first-hand information to know what is practical. Is that correct?

This is perfectly possible. One needs all information to develop a plan for an invasion. While to decide what shouldn't be done, one only needs bits and pieces.

[AisA]

In the first place, one need not be a military expert to realize that appeasement of evil is not a practical long term policy.

In the second place, it is obviously fallacious to assert that since Bush has not taken any action, no action is possible.

In the third place, claiming superior knowledge and then claiming to be LMAO with a smiley face is a lame attempt at the argument from intimidation and I reject it as such.

In the fourth place, asserting that "questions have not been thought through" is not the equivalent of answering them and is, rather, an attempt to avoid them.

In the fifth place declaring that I have advocated the destruction of millions of innocent civilians is a blatant case of erecting a straw man to shoot down as a means of avoiding the real argument.

In the sixth place the admonition, "We need to act as adults who think and not as children who merely lash out in anger" is a form of ad hominem, not a valid argument.

And finally, I am singularly unimpressed with those who claim superior knowledge, laugh at the proposals of others and mock their questions -- and then respond to a simple, respectful "What is your proposal for dealing with the problem, LucentBrave?" by declaring that they have no proposal because it is not their job.

[LucentBrave]

"In the first place, one need not be a military expert to realize that appeasement of evil is not a practical long term policy."

So You're suggesting that it doesn't take any logic whatsoever in order to appease evil. Yes, we know what needs to be done. Does that mean that on the eve of tomorrow, we are going to blindly go in and attack NK without the caution and knowledge required for such an act? You're suggesting that we go in and compulsively attack NK in the near future on a whim.

As I have said before, we don't come up with the info overnight. It takes very hard work. It takes sacrifice. We had the info and resources that we needed to attack Iraq. We simply do not have those resources available to attack NK.

I was not shutting down anybody's comments. I was actually praising them. I just merely asked for validated proof and grounds for a commencement of attack on NK. When you debate something, you need not only the knowledge to do so, you also have to have an open mind and be able to accept the fact that you can be proven wrong.

Also, if you read the article, the number of special forces units that they have has been confirmed at approx. 122,000. Not 100,000. It has been confirmed that this is also the world's largest. They have the third largest ground force in the world, and the fifth largest overall military in the world. 6,000,000 reservists is a lot of people. I don't know how many people you think we have in the military right now, but we do not have that many people to toss around on a compulsive whim overnight. It takes time, planning, and intricate logistics in order to perform such a task.

I do wish we could just march or fly or whatever right on in and blow them all to hell. Does this mean that I think we should? No, it does not- and wishing for it doesn't make it happen either.

[oldsalt]

A is A:

In the first place, no one said that appeasement is a valid policy, long term or otherwise. I think I may safely say that everyone on this thread thinks appeasement is evil.

In the second place, no one said that inaction on Bush's part means that no action is possible. If I may restate what Lucent said, perhaps it will be clearer (begging Lucent's pardon): What Bush may want to do, and what we are able to do at the moment, are two separate things. Just because we appear to be inactive right now doesn't mean that no one is making plans. I.e., no magic wand is going to change the fact that we are in no position to attack NK right now, arm-chair generals, notwithstanding.

I'll skip the third place until the end of this post. What you are talking about is someone's manner of speaking.

In the fourth place, how does one answer a question that is ill-formed, not properly thought out, and unclear? I sometimes work for days formulating a valid question. Not answering such a question is only the avoidance of wasting your breath.

In fifth place, if you advocate a nuclear attack, you are in fact advocating the destruction of innocents. It is unavoidable. Unfortunately, we will find ourselves facing the destruction of innocents no matter what we do, but I find the attitude that it doesn't matter to be abhorrent. This isn't a case of erecting a strawman, it is a part of the moral question being discussed. To pass off the death of innocents as a non-concern because one feels no responsibility for them is easy, especially since that person will most likely be sitting comfortably at home while others deal with the consequences. That is, indeed, taking no responsibility. (And no, A is A, I'm not suggesting this is your position. It is, however, the position of others on this thread. I am speaking to them.)

In the sixth place, my admonition to act like a thinking adult was not any form of ad hominem. Do not lift one sentence out of context and declare that I'm merely engaging in a personal attack. I began that post by saying that, in my frustration and anger, my first reaction is to drop a very large bomb on the source of that frustration and anger. Justified or not, to do so in a fit of unthinking rage, is a child's method of dealing with his emotions. An adult considers the ethical justification, thinks about what is to be accomplished, and then -- and only then -- plans a course of action. Acting without thought is childish and pointing out my own childish wishes isn't ad hominem, unless you are suggesting that I am attacking myself.

There are those on this forum who blithely attack another's integrity at the drop of a debater's hat. The discussion then degenerates into tit-for-tat name calling and a great deal of offense being taken. I would hope that people would consider that people are working out serious questions here and such tactics have no place. A little understanding of the fact that what someone writes may not come out sounding the same way it would if we were in a face to face discussion would go a long way. There are few here who have the writing skills to always write lucidly off the top of their head. Even professional writers have to work to make what they write correspond to what they think. A little less instant umbrage and a little more understanding is called for. Please.