So Pyongyang finally got around to launching that missile everyone was worried about, along with five other short-range ones, all of which fell unceremoniously into the Sea of Japan. Japan, obviously, is upset.
Japan is already talking about economic sanctions, but there’s been no real response yet from the West. What should the US do about Baby Kim?
-Q
The US is in a tricky situation because, like it or not, protecting oneself from aggresive foreign nations involves a circus of appeasement.
Missles are used for one thing, destruction. There is no way North Korea can defend this action (unlike Iran) as a peaceful action. The US must take imediate steps to meet force with force.
Well these missiles seem to have failed in their intention to go beyond the Sea of Japan, so if this was meant to be Kim’s big show of strength on the 4th of July (it would have been the 5th in that part of the world) it did not work out so well for him.
The problem with this is South Korea which has become Chaberlin esque in a way that is actually quite startling. Though the military of the RoK does hate the DPRK, the people and the government currently lack the will to let war be the “political solution by other means.”
All of the news reports state that the missiles failed. I assume this means that they were not good enough to reach the expected range on their own, not that US counter-missile tech intercepted them. It is bittersweet that the launch failed due to North Korean incompetence, and not US competence.
Oh, the political fireworks that would have resulted from a successful employment of a Star Wars shield.
The proper response to North Korea is to attack and disarm them immediately, totally and irrevocably–and to replace their evil communist regime with a laissez faire republic that is pro-reason, pro-freedom and pro-gold standard. The U.S. has more than enough military might at its disposal to destroy all of N. Korea’s key weapons facilities and to keep any ally of Pyongyang (e.g. Red China) at bay while the operation is in progress. The only reason we do not do this is because there are too many altruists in our government who place the interests of N. Korea above those of America.
Incidentally, had the U.S. adopted this policy against Soviet Russia in 1949 and Red China in 1964, there would have been no Korean War, no Cold War, no Cuban Revolution, no Vietnam War and no Granadan War. Capitalism, individual achievement and rational self-interest would have flourished throughout the world for the past half century and man’s mind and wealth would have been unleashed to conquer the farthest reaches of the solar system.
The U.S. has more than enough military might at its disposal to destroy all of N. Korea’s key weapons facilities and to keep any ally of Pyongyang (e.g. Red China) at bay while the operation is in progress. The only reason we do not do this is because there are too many altruists in our government who place the interests of N. Korea above those of America.
That is all just slightly ridiculous.
The U.S. has more than enough military might at its disposal to destroy all of N. Korea’s key weapons facilities and to keep any ally of Pyongyang (e.g. Red China) at bay while the operation is in progress.
Part one. While the North Korean army is starving it is still large. North Korea also represents the single largest failure of US intelligence in the world so we do not know where all thier military is. Part of this problem is that the DPRK has several underground bunkers that are intergrated into their subway network. This system is designed to resist a nuclear explosion so we certainly do not have the firepower to hit every target in the country in one fell swoop. It would be a challenge. The entire country has been preparing for a major defensive war for fifty years. Considering the current strain that the US military faces by having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and having to rotate in the National Guard occasionally, we may very well not have the troops to properly hold the territory, let along keep the Chinese from taking advantage of the situation.
This leads to Part Two. China is not supportive of North Korea, they are interested in removing that regime as well and an American attack would do a good job of prompting the PLA to get involved and move in. We have a very limited deterent ability with the Chinese at the moment, with certain members of the Politburo very interested in destroying Los Angeles with a nuclear warhead. Though it would be possible to deter China, and there are strategies to do that, its not a given that Beijing will sit idle and just let it happen.
The only reason we do not do this is because there are too many altruists in our government who place the interests of N. Korea above those of America.
Ahh yes, because the American government is filled with Marxists who are concerned about solidarity with the working class of all nations and so refuse to attack North Korea on the basis that they want to help Kim Jong Il survive!
The American armed forces and political apparatus would like nothing better then to end North Korea and fight a war to do it. There are however, genuine concerns about the ultimate success of the attempt, and whether there are going to be ways to orchestrate more opportune moments to occur to spur its collapse.
Incidentally, had the U.S. adopted this policy against Soviet Russia in 1949 and Red China in 1964, there would have been no Korean War, no Cold War, no Cuban Revolution, no Vietnam War and no Granadan War.
Well we are certainly going into a rather extreme version into the land of the Alternate History. First of all, if this policy had been adopted in 1949 (which is your first date you provide for it to be used) then we would have to be slugging it out with the Russians across their continent. We would not have had the luxury to of multiple nuclear warheads to make the job easier. Such an adventure would have made us weaker in the far east resulting in some rather nasty actions being taken by the Chinese which would have made fighting in Korea or Vietnam much more difficult on our part. Whether we could hold Japan is debatable as well. Whether it would be in America’s best interest to maintain a war economy after having finished with Germany is also something questionable. It would hardly be the best way to promote capitalism in America. (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom)
[qoute]Capitalism, individual achievement and rational self-interest would have flourished throughout the world for the past half century and man’s mind and wealth would have been unleashed to conquer the farthest reaches of the solar system
Your faith in humanitys willingness to adapt a full Laissez faire system when forced onto it by Americans with 1949 level technology is slightly hyperbolic.
…replace their evil communist regime with a laissez faire republic that is pro-reason, pro-freedom and pro-gold standard.
Is that anything like Iraq?
That is all just slightly ridiculous.
Part one. While the North Korean army is starving it is still large.
So it takes ten ICBM strikes instead of just five to wipe out Korean communist army. I don’t see the problem.
North Korea also represents the single largest failure of US intelligence in the world so we do not know where all thier military is. Part of this problem is that the DPRK has several underground bunkers that are intergrated into their subway network. This system is designed to resist a nuclear explosion so we certainly do not have the firepower to hit every target in the country in one fell swoop.
False. We have enough kill power to send them all back to the Pleistocene Age. How long do you suppose the commies can hole up in their comfy bunkers once the ground above has been reduced to radioactive glass? Five years? Ten? Okay, let ‘em. At least they won’t be able to launch rockets at us.
It would be a challenge. The entire country has been preparing for a major defensive war for fifty years. Considering the current strain that the US military faces by having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and having to rotate in the National Guard occasionally, we may very well not have the troops to properly hold the territory, let along keep the Chinese from taking advantage of the situation.
That’s why we implement Gen. MacArthur’s plan of covering the ground with radioactive cobalt.
This leads to Part Two. China is not supportive of North Korea, they are interested in removing that regime as well and an American attack would do a good job of prompting the PLA to get involved and move in.
Let the Chicoms pursue the overthrow of Kim Jong Il at their own glacial pace. In the meantime, the United States must act to provide for its national security, which includes terminating kingpins of the Axis of Evil.
We have a very limited deterent ability with the Chinese at the moment, with certain members of the Politburo very interested in destroying Los Angeles with a nuclear warhead. Though it would be possible to deter China, and there are strategies to do that, its not a given that Beijing will sit idle and just let it happen.
The Chicoms are not going to bring a fiery death on their heads to save Kim Jong Il’s backside.
Ahh yes, because the American government is filled with Marxists who are concerned about solidarity with the working class of all nations and so refuse to attack North Korea on the basis that they want to help Kim Jong Il survive!
Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not accuse the U.S. government of being Marxist but of being altruistic. I’m certain you can appreciate the distinction.
The American armed forces and political apparatus would like nothing better then to end North Korea and fight a war to do it. There are however, genuine concerns about the ultimate success of the attempt, and whether there are going to be ways to orchestrate more opportune moments to occur to spur its collapse.
That assumes that attacking N. Korea after it can land the big one on NYC is more opportune than the present.
Well we are certainly going into a rather extreme version into the land of the Alternate History. First of all, if this policy had been adopted in 1949 (which is your first date you provide for it to be used) then we would have to be slugging it out with the Russians across their continent. We would not have had the luxury to of multiple nuclear warheads to make the job easier. Such an adventure would have made us weaker in the far east resulting in some rather nasty actions being taken by the Chinese which would have made fighting in Korea or Vietnam rather impossible on our part.
We had enough atomic bombs in the early fifties to bring Moscow to its knees. Once we dispatched them, we could have turned our attention to the Far East–in the same way we knocked out the Nazis before we clobbered the Japanese in 1945.
Your faith in humanitys willingness to adapt a full Laissez faire system when forced onto it by Americans with 1949 level technology is slightly misplaced.
If people prefer the warmth of U.S. warheads to the cold, cruel free market, it is not my worry.
Problem is the conventional weaponry trained on Seoul on the DPRK side that can inflict perhaps millions of injuries and casualties to South Koreans. As a realist, the United States has to be careful because of the global dynamics. I’m just in favor as anyone here to eliminate the DPRK, but there is also a certain measure of critical thinking that we need to have.
So it takes ten ICBM strikes instead of just five to wipe out Korean communist army. I don’t see the problem.
False. We have enough kill power to send them all back to the Pleistocene Age. How long do you suppose the commies can hole up in their comfy bunkers once the ground above has been reduced to radioactive glass? Five years? Ten? Okay, let ‘em. At least they won’t be able to launch rockets at us.
That’s why we implement Gen. MacArthur’s plan of covering the ground with radioactive cobalt.
I think the large radiactive clouds that will drift over neighboring countries might put a damper on those plans.
If I, as a civilian, have the ablity to download google earth and take a look at a large percentage of that country at 10cm/pixel resolution, I am almost positive that sitting on some mainframe in the pentagon we have an up to date snapshot of the whole country.
That being said, why wouldn’t we be able to launch a percision attack on all military/infrastructural targets with a couple of war-ready aircraft carriers? I think that, with enough planning, it could be accomplished in one mid-night raid.
If someone throws rocks at you, even if they miss, doesn’t that mean that their already commited to harming you? It’s hard for me to think about what it would be like to wake up to radioactive fall-out coming from LA, from which I live less than 400 mile away.
Problem is the conventional weaponry trained on Seoul on the DPRK side that can inflict perhaps millions of injuries and casualties to South Koreans. As a realist, the United States has to be careful because of the global dynamics. I’m just in favor as anyone here to eliminate the DPRK, but there is also a certain measure of critical thinking that we need to have.
First of all, a pre-emptive strike, if done properly, would destroy conventional military as well as WMD capability. Sure, there will be some artillery and small missile launchers we’d miss, but nothing capable of inflicting “millions of injuries and casualties to South Koreans.” Secondly, the first obligation of a U.S. government is to defend U.S. citizens–not South Koreans, not Taiwanese, not the unfortunate “innocents” who might be caught in a crossfire. The grotesque concept that one must never wage a war of survival as long as an “innocent” might be harmed is one of the most self-crippling, self-abnegating notions ever devised in our post-Kantian world.
Points about the issue of nuclear fallout affecting South Korea and Japan have already been raised.
Let the Chicoms pursue the overthrow of Kim Jong Il at their own glacial pace. In the meantime, the United States must act to provide for its national security, which includes terminating kingpins of the Axis of Evil.
The Chicoms are not going to bring a fiery death on their heads to save Kim Jong Il’s backside.
The PLA these is hardly “glacial”. They have been modernizing and I would prefer not to give them the benefit of being closer to South Korea as well as remove the DPRK from the map.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not accuse the U.S. government of being Marxist but of being altruistic. I’m certain you can appreciate the distinction.
According to my dictionary, altruism is, “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others : some may choose to work with vulnerable elderly people out of altruism.” You assume the US does not want to remove North Korea because they are concerned about the North Koreans. I attest that they are concerned because it will not be an easy situation to follow through. You are unfairly leveling charges against the US government and its employees.
That assumes that attacking N. Korea after it can land the big one on NYC is more opportune than the present.
In my opinion, targeting and working to remove the leadership apparatus of North Korea is a prefered tactic since I believe the army is not in a state to continue fighting after it looses people to give it orders. I am also interested in working to find out where they keep their nuclear missiles so that they can be targeted beforehand to prevent them from retaliating against either us, the RoK, or Japan. Should the DPRK develop an effective ICBM to hit NYC, then the realities of the situation will force a more forceful response. As it is, I don’t believe we need to start using the nuclear arsenal.
If people prefer the warmth of U.S. warheads to the cold, cruel free market, it is not my worry.
Removing our enemies is moral. Imposing capitalism from a gun, less so.
Secondly, the first obligation of a U.S. government is to defend U.S. citizens–not South Koreans, not Taiwanese, not the unfortunate “innocents” who might be caught in a crossfire. The grotesque concept that one must never wage a war of survival as long as an “innocent” might be harmed is one of the most self-crippling, self-abnegating notions ever devised in our post-Kantian world.
There are US citizens living the South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.
I also tend to prefer the idea of keeping the South Korean and Japanese economies around.
Is it possible to impose “Capitalism” with a gun? I mean, if you are talking about instituting a gov’t that only protects against the initiation of force, i.e. only retaliates against those that initiate force, then how can you force it up on anyone? The only people you are forcing to abide by “non-force” laws are those initiating force.
If you go to an area and tell the people there that we will “protect those that are harmed by the initiation of force” you are not forcing them into anything, you are doing the exact opposite, you are protecting them from force.
Points about the issue of nuclear fallout affecting South Korea and Japan have already been raised.
And answered. The well being of the citizens of other nations is not the proper concern of the United States government. The national defense of U.S. territory is.
The PLA these is hardly “glacial”. They have been modernizing and I would prefer not to give them the benefit of being closer to South Korea as well as remove the DPRK from the map.
Have it your way. Let’s give the Chicoms until Jan. 1, 2007 to disarm the North Koreans. After that, POTUS picks up the phone and starts issuing launch codes.
According to my dictionary, altruism is, “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others : some may choose to work with vulnerable elderly people out of altruism.” You assume the US does not want to remove North Korea because they are concerned about the North Koreans. I attest that they are concerned because it will not be an easy situation to follow through. You are unfairly leveling charges against the US government and its employees.
Ayn Rand wrote in The Virtue of Selfishness, “Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil.” Number One U.S. government employee G.W. Bush said, “Our nation is strengthened every time a citizen steps forward to serve a cause greater than self-interest.” Ergo, GWB is an altruist. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20…6/20030614.html
In my opinion, targeting and working to remove the leadership apparatus of North Korea is a prefered tactic since I believe the army is not in a state to continue fighting after it looses people to give it orders. I am also interested in working to find out where they keep their nuclear missiles so that they can be targeted beforehand to prevent them from retaliating against either us, the RoK, or Japan. Should the DPRK develop an effective ICBM to hit NYC, then the realities of the situation will force a more forceful response. As it is, I don’t believe we need to start using the nuclear arsenal.
You have already stated “North Korea also represents the single largest failure of US intelligence in the world.” Yet you now insist that these failed intelligence agencies should be given even more time to discover where the Korean commies keep their nukes? At what point will you be satisfied with USINTEL? In a couple of years when one of our satellites detects the heat from an ICBM on its way to New York City?
Removing our enemies is moral. Imposing capitalism from a gun, less so.
Chopping off a head is no good if an even more vicious one grows back. I agree with Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s policy with regard to a terrorist nation: “Eliminating Iran’s terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government.” http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635
As long as the North Koreans keep swerving towards Marxism, we need a well-oiled nuclear whip to keep them in line. They’ll catch on before long. You’ll see.
There are US citizens living the South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.
So? There were U.S. soldiers in Germany and Japan when the U.S. bombed those countries. At least now American nationals have the opportunity to get out of Dodge before the gunfight at noon.
Is it possible to impose “Capitalism” with a gun?
In my community all of the banks have guards with guns. Doesn’t the presence of these armed guards “impose” a respect for the “capitalistic” rights of the bank and customers?
I mean, if you are talking about instituting a gov’t that only protects against the initiation of force, i.e. only retaliates against those that initiate force, then how can you force it up on anyone? The only people you are forcing to abide by “non-force” laws are those initiating force.
I don’t consider imposing a capitalist government on a nation recently freed from dictatorship the initiation of force. After all, the guards at the local bank are not initiating force against those who refuse to abide by “non-force” laws.
And answered. The well being of the citizens of other nations is not the proper concern of the United States government. The national defense of U.S. territory is.
So you would advocate sending a large nuclear cloud over China and Russia doing untold damage to them simply because we feel threatened by North Korea? Our government’s job is to protect US citizens, yes, but not at the expense of killing off people in countries that did nothing to us. Their government’s job would then be to defend their citizens, leading to a rather large war. That would be like saying the government would be justified in carpet bombing a neighborhood because there are 3 crack houses in it.
First of all, a pre-emptive strike, if done properly, would destroy conventional military as well as WMD capability. Sure, there will be some artillery and small missile launchers we’d miss, but nothing capable of inflicting “millions of injuries and casualties to South Koreans.” Secondly, the first obligation of a U.S. government is to defend U.S. citizens–not South Koreans, not Taiwanese, not the unfortunate “innocents” who might be caught in a crossfire. The grotesque concept that one must never wage a war of survival as long as an “innocent” might be harmed is one of the most self-crippling, self-abnegating notions ever devised in our post-Kantian world.
Sure, we must look after our interests and that’s why we should employ rational measures to avoid civilian South Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese casualties. These are our allies economically, militarily and intellectually as are Israel and most of Europe. While we should place our interests first, this does not give America the license to completely disregard everyone else unless there is simply no choice. You wouldn’t indiscriminatly fire into a crowd to stop a pickpocket just because you have the right to self-defense.
Like I said, we have the moral right to destroy the DPRK, but is it in our interest or is it militarily feasable at this point? It doesn’t appear that the DPRK is a threat to America even after this “display” where the long-range missle malfunctioned 45 seconds after launch. I’m confident that the CIA and military know more about this than both of us so I reserve them to make the judgement. One can even argue that a military assault on the DPRK would actually be sacrifical of America and could provoke Russia and China into a conflict.
And I take offense that you twisted my comments into something they weren’t and implying that I subscribe to the Kantian tradition. Be more careful, sir.
You have already stated “North Korea also represents the single largest failure of US intelligence in the world.” Yet you now insist that these failed intelligence agencies should be given even more time to discover where the Korean commies keep their nukes? At what point will you be satisfied with USINTEL? In a couple of years when one of our satellites detects the heat from an ICBM on its way to New York City?
The failures of US intelligence was not because of something inherent in US intelligence, it was due to choices that were made at points in time about the way that the CIA would operate, which weakened the agencies. Those choices can be reversed.
Michael Baer in “See No Evil” discusses much of this. Though his focus is on the middle east and not Asia, his progression of the history of the CIA in recent years shows that the agency used to be doing its job, then it lagged, and now 9/11 has jump-started it again.
Ayn Rand wrote in The Virtue of Selfishness, “Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil.” Number One U.S. government employee G.W. Bush said, “Our nation is strengthened every time a citizen steps forward to serve a cause greater than self-interest.” Ergo, GWB is an altruist. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20…6/20030614.html
I doubt George Bush thinks its evil to work for his own benefit.
If I, as a civilian, have the ablity to download google earth and take a look at a large percentage of that country at 10cm/pixel resolution, I am almost positive that sitting on some mainframe in the pentagon we have an up to date snapshot of the whole country.
That being said, why wouldn’t we be able to launch a percision attack on all military/infrastructural targets with a couple of war-ready aircraft carriers? I think that, with enough planning, it could be accomplished in one mid-night raid.
The reliance on satelites as the only way to determine where our threats our was one of the greatest mistakes of the CIA. There is only so much a satelite can show you. It can not show you whats inside a bunker, or a warehouse, or a subway. There are uses, but its not the be all end all to the situation. Unless you want to level every mountain where who knows what might be hiding, you are bound to miss assets.
I am not sure about the physics involved, but I wonder using our nuclear war heads for the explicit purpose of simply flatening the country to a sheet of paper would require such a large percentage of our stockpile that may very well give a deterent advantage to China or Russia.
Chopping off a head is no good if an even more vicious one grows back. I agree with Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s policy with regard to a terrorist nation: “Eliminating Iran’s terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government.” http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635
Leonard Peikoff is not entirely wrong, but I have yet to see the ARI produce a press release regarding America current corruption filled relationship with Saudi Arabia, and would like to see him talk about that at some point. Otherwise he gives only a very limited and very constrained view of the Middle East.
I doubt George Bush thinks its evil to work for his own benefit.
I can’t cite the actual quote, but I think Peikoff sums it up best when he brings up the answer Bush gave to the question “Who was the greatest political philosopher ever” and he responded “Jesus Christ”. Any man who says that and ascribes to Christianity and its conservative stance is an Altruist, they just don’t act on it politically (I’m not being condascending, I know you know this). I can’t be 100% of his psychological thought torwards his benefit but as you’ve seen, he slams those who have been accused of working for their own benefit whenever he delivers lines like the ones that were in the previously posted article.
reason for edit:grammar repair