FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


North Korea cut emergency phone to south





zaxacongrejo
North Korea cut emergency phone to south
In a kind of answer to the latest sanctions North Korea as “broken “their emergency connection known as red phone with south Korea.
Like always we have seen their furious rhetoric again at their national TV I guess they have only one channel never saw another one anywhere but that’s probably my fault because I don’t speak their language, so I can only assist to transcript and edited parts of their national news.
but this latest’s sanctions are just a consequence of their recent nuclear test more yet they remain a poor country that we can even call crazy country, because they do behave in strange forms by this I mean collect mandatory at 10 pm, a precious leader that is looked as almost a god, luxury to their military elites and hunger to the rest of the population, etc, etc, etc,
In the mean time in the last 15 year South Korea explode in progress high tech progress
ship building, cars, Plaines, so many things even gangnam style that for those who don’t know is a kind of comedy about the people of the gangam zone/ neighborhood witch as for resident s some of the younger millionaires’ of the world ,all thanks to technology and hard work.
So in my opinion no matter how developed and powerful their nuclear arsenal is because they haven’t money to keep it updated and to maintain it and by money I mean real economy.

watched at sic noticias tv
RoylanM
zaxacongrejo wrote:
North Korea cut emergency phone to south
In a kind of answer to the latest sanctions North Korea as “broken “their emergency connection known as red phone with south Korea.
Like always we have seen their furious rhetoric again at their national TV I guess they have only one channel never saw another one anywhere but that’s probably my fault because I don’t speak their language, so I can only assist to transcript and edited parts of their national news.
but this latest’s sanctions are just a consequence of their recent nuclear test more yet they remain a poor country that we can even call crazy country, because they do behave in strange forms by this I mean collect mandatory at 10 pm, a precious leader that is looked as almost a god, luxury to their military elites and hunger to the rest of the population, etc, etc, etc,
In the mean time in the last 15 year South Korea explode in progress high tech progress
ship building, cars, Plaines, so many things even gangnam style that for those who don’t know is a kind of comedy about the people of the gangam zone/ neighborhood witch as for resident s some of the younger millionaires’ of the world ,all thanks to technology and hard work.
So in my opinion no matter how developed and powerful their nuclear arsenal is because they haven’t money to keep it updated and to maintain it and by money I mean real economy.


I totally agree with you man. If they think about targeting the US with those... We'll show them what technology really is.
Iceaxe0410
I have been reading a little bit about this. Some say, it's a trend that North Korea is getting ready for an attack on South Korea sometime soon which may turn into a conflict as large as the Korean War. It doesn't help that South Korea has indicated that it will use more aggressive force the next time they are attacked. Something like this can easily turn into World War 3. Knowing how the U.S. seems to like getting involved in wars, it's also not such an extreme impossibility. I just hope it turns out to be a bunch of rhetoric and nothing comes of it.
Mr_Howl
Quote:
I have been reading a little bit about this. Some say, it's a trend that North Korea is getting ready for an attack on South Korea sometime soon which may turn into a conflict as large as the Korean War. It doesn't help that South Korea has indicated that it will use more aggressive force the next time they are attacked. Something like this can easily turn into World War 3. Knowing how the U.S. seems to like getting involved in wars, it's also not such an extreme impossibility. I just hope it turns out to be a bunch of rhetoric and nothing comes of it.


I don't think it would be World War 3. North Korea doesn't really have any allies.

However, I do hope something comes of it. Right now, there is a "holocaust" happening in North Korea, where people are tortured, starved, and put into concentration camps. Entire families are disappeared in the night, only to be put in forced labor camps until they die. Not to mention the general amount of poverty in the country.

Something needs to be done to save the people in North Korea, and it will probably need to involve toppling the current regime. Ideally that could be done without bloodshed, but that seems highly unlikely. So hopefully it can be done with minimal bloodshed, and then the country can be free.
deanhills
Mr_Howl wrote:
Quote:
I have been reading a little bit about this. Some say, it's a trend that North Korea is getting ready for an attack on South Korea sometime soon which may turn into a conflict as large as the Korean War. It doesn't help that South Korea has indicated that it will use more aggressive force the next time they are attacked. Something like this can easily turn into World War 3. Knowing how the U.S. seems to like getting involved in wars, it's also not such an extreme impossibility. I just hope it turns out to be a bunch of rhetoric and nothing comes of it.


I don't think it would be World War 3. North Korea doesn't really have any allies.
How about scientific cooperation with Iran as well as a pact with Syria?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578348640295282274.html
coolclay
No allies? You mean like China, and like Deanhills mentioned definitely Iran and Syria.

I think there is definitely reason to be concerned but any provocation will be a quick death sentence for them, nuke or no nuke. My guess is that they are thinking that if they threaten the US with a nuke, it will somehow force us to stay out of a North/South conflict that will be happening soon. But I don't think that will happen, the US (right or wrong) still believes it must intervene in armed conflicts the world over regardless of a supposed nuclear threat.

Call me a hippy, but why does war always have to be the answer? Oh well, I guess it's a form of population control, probably quicker and better than the starvation that will be upon us soon enough. I hate suffering but somehow it seems to be a common theme regarding the human condition.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
I guess it's a form of population control, probably quicker and better than the starvation that will be upon us soon enough. I hate suffering but somehow it seems to be a common theme regarding the human condition.
Guess everything in life is relative. If one really looks at how destructive the population growth is to the world relative to an atomic war threat, then I can't help but wonder which one is worse!
twotrophy
Maybe the country wants to show that it cannot be challenged by anyone including world superpowers like the USA. Having nuclear weapons test very often is a possible sign that the country is preparing to go to war. What do you all think of the possibility of World War 3 starting because of this country?
Pande
I think if it did start, they'd be annihilated pretty quick. Even their military population and resources couldn't fight the fact that they are bordered by ocean and opposed by just about every other country in the world. What is worrying is the possibility of a succesful first-strike by nuclear devices.

I do fear for the safety of South Korea and China, who I hope are developing powerful surface-to-air protection like the US is. (they've more than doubled their protection in Alaska, where they keep many anti-ICBM installments)
Nick2008
I really don't give much credence to their threats, North Korea is always trying to intimidate the U.S. - in part to advance its national agenda but also to instill confidence in its people. The only reason North Korea has become more vocal in the past months is because it has a new leader that is trying to prove himself. I'm sure that the commanding officers in the North Korean military realize that an attack on the U.S. will not be of any benefit to them.

Now, if hypothetically, North Korea does attack the U.S., there are many factors that we should be concerned about. I feel like many people have this notion that it will be an "easy" war and that North Korea would be quickly "annihilated." I can't believe that we, as human beings, ALWAYS seem to fall for this belief. Practically all of the European countries on both sides in the "War to End All Wars" (World War I) believed that the conflict would be easily over in a couple of months, similarly in World War II, Adolf Hitler believed that he could easily capture Russia within one year or so. Clearly, we all know these wars did not turn out to be like that. Likewise, the Vietnam War turned into over a decade of intense guerrilla warfare, despite the West's sharp technological advantage. In the end, the U.S. lost as Vietnam was unified under a socialist government.

The factors I think most people need to consider more seriously are:
1. The U.S. nuclear defense system has never been tested in a real situation and its effectiveness is debated. In fact, in some test scenarios, America's current arrangement of interceptors and radar stations on the West coast were able to achieve only ~50% effectiveness. This means we can not automatically assume that we will successfully shoot down a North Korean nuclear missile (assuming it's actually capable of reaching the U.S.).

2. North Korea is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It is not Vietnam. It's a country with an iron "military-first" policy. The military is more important than food. This means that North Korea has a lot of equipment, I mean A LOT. North Korea has the 4th largest army in the world, 10,000,000 people fit for service, 5,400 tanks, 3,500 towed artilleries, 2,500 armored fighting vehicles, 1,667 aircraft, and 70 submarines. The entire nation is ready to die in the name of their country. A force like that is not easy to annihilate, even if it is of inferior quality (just like the USSR had the advantage in numbers against a more technologically-advanced Germany).

3. Amphibious Assault. The U.S. may have the best military capability in the world, but what good is it if it is severely hindered by the need to cross over 5,000 miles of ocean? The need to attack from the sea and air severely hinders the ability to move personnel, equipment, and vehicles and the amount that can be brought at any given time is also restricted. Sinking a ship during a war not only means that the vessel is lost, but also everything on it (tanks, rations, guns, equipment). This is bound to happen considering that North Korea has a submarine force equal to that of the U.S. (70 and 71, respectively).

4. Terrain - The Korean War already showed this. The hilly/mountainous terrain and locals' familiarity of it in North Korea give them a significant defensive advantage.

Yes, some may argue that America could simply drop a couple of nuclear weapons on North Korea, but lets remember the international implications of using them.

A war with North Korea would be detrimental for all parties involved, I feel like many people underestimate their capability. Yes, their nuclear capability is definitely subpar, but their ability to wage war is not.
coolclay
Great "big picture" analysis! I agree that without overall annihilation of the country it would be an incredibly difficult battle, with a potentially heavy toll on both sides. Not a battle that anyone in their right mind wants to see.

Agreed Deanhills sometimes I wonder myself. Destruction of Earth via human development and overpopulation or destruction of Earth via war. I honestly think in the end the Earth would be better able to rebound afterward if it were war. But that's highly debatable!
Josso
Sidenote: allegedly North Korea cut all phones in the Ryongchon disaster
ocalhoun
Nick2008 wrote:
I really don't give much credence to their threats, North Korea is always trying to intimidate the U.S. - in part to advance its national agenda but also to instill confidence in its people. The only reason North Korea has become more vocal in the past months is because it has a new leader that is trying to prove himself. I'm sure that the commanding officers in the North Korean military realize that an attack on the U.S. will not be of any benefit to them.

Indeed, but if 'dear leader' orders an attack, I'm not sure it will be possible fore them to refuse... not without a coup that may or may not be feasible at the time.

Luckily though, I do agree that it will not cause world war III.
North Korea may have a few friends that it likes to trade military technology with (Iran?) and trade goods with (China), but it doesn't have any allies willing to go to war with the US to help them.
The Chinese could, but I'm pretty sure they would easily see that going to war with the US over the fate of N. Korea is not beneficial to them at all, even if they won.
Quote:

Now, if hypothetically, North Korea does attack the U.S., there are many factors that we should be concerned about. I feel like many people have this notion that it will be an "easy" war and that North Korea would be quickly "annihilated." I can't believe that we, as human beings, ALWAYS seem to fall for this belief. Practically all of the European countries on both sides in the "War to End All Wars" (World War I) believed that the conflict would be easily over in a couple of months, similarly in World War II, Adolf Hitler believed that he could easily capture Russia within one year or so. Clearly, we all know these wars did not turn out to be like that.

Before I move on, yes, people often do severely underestimate the cost and difficulty of a war before it begins.
Quote:
Likewise, the Vietnam War turned into over a decade of intense guerrilla warfare, despite the West's sharp technological advantage. In the end, the U.S. lost as Vietnam was unified under a socialist government.

Vietnam was more complicated than that. The communists had support from Russia, and had some technology available at their disposal that could match the USA's. (Such as mig fighters)
There was also the political restrictions put in place (with the hopes of not escillating the war into an all out WWIII between US and USSR.)

Now, with more recent wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) we can see that even an extreme technology gap doesn't guarantee quick and easy victory -- because that depends on how you define victory.
Initial 'victory' in those countries was quick and easy. The US military went in and quickly wiped out all (conventional) resistance, taking over lightning-quick.
Occupying and 'rebuilding' though... that is not quick and easy.

The lesson I think we can take from that is:
Defeating N. Korea could be relatively easy... if your goal is to destroy most of their military and then get the hell out.
Taking complete control of the country and running it -- that would be extremely difficult.
Quote:

The factors I think most people need to consider more seriously are:
1. The U.S. nuclear defense system has never been tested in a real situation and its effectiveness is debated. In fact, in some test scenarios, America's current arrangement of interceptors and radar stations on the West coast were able to achieve only ~50% effectiveness. This means we can not automatically assume that we will successfully shoot down a North Korean nuclear missile (assuming it's actually capable of reaching the U.S.).

I think N. Korean technological incompetence is a better guard against and incoming ICBM than the missile defense system could ever be.

I'll worry about it when they develop a missile that does more than splash into the pacific after malfunctioning badly.
Quote:

2. North Korea is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It is not Vietnam. It's a country with an iron "military-first" policy. The military is more important than food. This means that North Korea has a lot of equipment, I mean A LOT. North Korea has the 4th largest army in the world, 10,000,000 people fit for service, 5,400 tanks, 3,500 towed artilleries, 2,500 armored fighting vehicles, 1,667 aircraft, and 70 submarines. The entire nation is ready to die in the name of their country. A force like that is not easy to annihilate, even if it is of inferior quality (just like the USSR had the advantage in numbers against a more technologically-advanced Germany).

True, but the numbers don't take into account quality and condition.

10 million fit for service... but how many of them are actually fit, and not starving but called fit on paper? Are all of them properly equipped and trained?

Likewise the large numbers of tanks and so forth... Sure there's a lot of them... but they're getting antiquated and aging. Do all of them still work, or just enough to parade around occasionally? Do they have sufficient fuel?
...not to mention that the qualitative differences will mean they're not going to last long on the battlefield.
Quote:

3. Amphibious Assault. The U.S. may have the best military capability in the world, but what good is it if it is severely hindered by the need to cross over 5,000 miles of ocean? The need to attack from the sea and air severely hinders the ability to move personnel, equipment, and vehicles and the amount that can be brought at any given time is also restricted. Sinking a ship during a war not only means that the vessel is lost, but also everything on it (tanks, rations, guns, equipment). This is bound to happen considering that North Korea has a submarine force equal to that of the U.S. (70 and 71, respectively).

The US has several large military bases in S. Korea and Japan that supplies of all kinds can be flown into (using the USA's truly impressive air transport capability), and from which air strikes can easily be flown to N. Korea.
There's also a good supply of long-range bombers that, with in-air refueling, could strike directly from the US to N. Korea. (They were built to fly from the US to Russia, after all.)

And you also need to take qualitative concerns into account in submarines. The attrition of N. Korean subs would be rather high, I think.
(Sadly, I think that means they might go for a shotgun approach terrorist tactic against US shipping in the pacific. Sure, they'll lose a few, but less than they would attacking the US military, and the effect they cause would be worse, forcing Pacific shipping into WWII-style merchant convoys and occupying the US navy in protecting those convoys.)
Quote:

4. Terrain - The Korean War already showed this. The hilly/mountainous terrain and locals' familiarity of it in North Korea give them a significant defensive advantage.

Which is less important if you're willing to just bombard them from the air and with missiles.
I really think total victory, invasion, and occupation are not necessary here. (Though if that happened, the terrain and locals would be a huge problem and it would become another Afghanistan.)
Quote:

Yes, some may argue that America could simply drop a couple of nuclear weapons on North Korea, but lets remember the international implications of using them.

I think the international implications would be minimal if N. Korea first attempted to nuke the US or S. Korea. A nuclear retaliation at that point -- especially if it focused primarily on military targets and tried to avoid large civilian populations -- could be politically viable.
Quote:

A war with North Korea would be detrimental for all parties involved,

War usually is.
But, if you're the one defending against an aggressor, it may be less detrimental than standing by and being attacked.
--And yes, I would only support an attack against N. Korea if they attacked first.
Quote:
I feel like many people underestimate their capability. Yes, their nuclear capability is definitely subpar, but their ability to wage war is not.

No, they would need to be taken seriously. And the casualties on both sides would be atrocious.
(Especially in all parts of S. Korea (including Seoul and some US military bases) that are in range of N. Korean artillery.)

But, I do think a war there would be quick and decisive.
First, a wave of stealth bombers and electronics warfare planes to sniff out and destroy N. Korean radar, communications, anti-aircraft, airfields and command centers.
Then, the non-stealth heavier bombers and fighter/strike aircraft to dump a whole lotta ordinance on all those tanks and artillery, and destroy any remaining N. Korean aircraft, weather they're on the ground or in the air. (Paying special attention, of course, to any anti-aircraft systems that come online after being hidden during the first wave.)
Then hunt down the N. Korean navy (mainly by air), paying special attention to hunting down those subs. (I'm willing to bet US intelligence agencies know exactly how many there are, and have a good idea where most of them are at any given time.)
Then allow what's left of the S. Korean ground forces to invade, with US air support only.
No US boots on ground in N. Korea at any point. (With the possible exception of special forces teams sent out to high-importance targets or as artillery/airstrike spotters.)
With any luck, a propaganda campaign could be launched and convince large portions of the N. Korean military to surrender. I'm willing to be the average soldier isn't well brainwashed enough to want to die for his country, or think that victory is likely over the US.

...That's assuming the nukes don't fly on either side.


Now, mind you, I don't think it's a good idea, and should only be done if N. Korea launches a full-scale attack. Lots of innocent people would die in a second Korean war. If all went well, not too many of those would be American, but still even in the best case scenario, lots of N. and S. Koreans would die.

Luckily, I don't think such a war is likely.
The N. Korean leadership (I think ... I hope) knows well enough that a war would not be to their advantage.
...and for that matter, nobody else (possibly) involved thinks it would be to their advantage either.
(luckily there's no oil in N. Korea so) the US doesn't want another pointless war,
China wouldn't want the high cost of participation for the small gain of keeping N. Korea to trade with.
S. Korea doesn't want to take over N. Korea, even if it could be done easily. They don't want to have to absorb all the poverty of the north and have to try to fix all the north's problems, and they don't want a flood of starving N. Korean refugees coming into S. Korea.
crazyfffan
I personally don't see how such a regime could still exist?
Are all the people there stupid or something? Humans never support a dictatorship like that, only animals do.
I looking forward to the day US's nuclear bombs are thrown into that country.
deanhills
crazyfffan wrote:
I personally don't see how such a regime could still exist?
Are all the people there stupid or something? Humans never support a dictatorship like that, only animals do.
I looking forward to the day US's nuclear bombs are thrown into that country.
I don't think they are stupid. They are unenlightened (may not have access to external news sources - your people in the street don't have Internet) and brainwashed. There is a difference.

For me there is a really good chance that all of us are brainwashed to a certain extent any way. We very easily believe what politicians and/or powerful and mega rich groups who have control of the media want us to believe. So there is an excellent chance that we may be just as unenlightened. If we THINK we know the "truth", we probably may never be able to discover it. If we continuously investigate "the truth" with an open mind and from a position that we don't know and are searching, we may stand a greater chance of discovering shades of the truth.
Iceaxe0410
Seems like he is stepping up the threats. I wonder what will come of this. I think his ultimate goal is to get more foreign aid while showing his military might to his people especially since he recently became the leader. There comes a point where I think the U.S. and the rest of the allies will eventually get tired of this and just end his regime. It's also just the reason the U.S. needs to go to war.

Also, I think many people assume that Kim Jong-un is a logical person. I don't doubt that he isn't stupid, but that doesn't mean he isn't crazy or inexperienced. He certainly has a lot of power for his age. Would he really go through with a military attack on U.S. bases and South Korea? I don't think so, but you never know. One can't know for sure what goes on in the mind of a leader that is isolated from the rest of the world.
zimmer
i can smell the hot issues in north korea over international news such as BBC world news and CNN. I dont know whats in North Korea but they have no match to USA and United Kingdom weapons.

South Korea is been an alies to USA and the DMZ zone is in hot place for negotations right now but the North Koreans dont have demands and objectives..

I guess they are one of the crazy world right now dont have objectives and goals in creating war?
playfungames
North Korea is acting up really weird these days. I mean, it was already weird but they have started doing things like nuclear tests (which they are not allowed to do) and things like these. I think if it was not for China, then North Korea would no longer exist already.

But the rest of the world is smart and going on a war with a rogue nation such as North Korea is not beneficial in any way. So, nothing will happen and we will only have some news saying North Korea is doing this and that showing their power. It only shows that the government is going crazy in order to show that they are powerful.
deanhills
playfungames wrote:
But the rest of the world is smart and going on a war with a rogue nation such as North Korea is not beneficial in any way. So, nothing will happen and we will only have some news saying North Korea is doing this and that showing their power. It only shows that the government is going crazy in order to show that they are powerful.
I'd be monitoring North Korea very carefully though, as it could easily become a loose cannon doing stupid things to get the world's attention.
Josso
deanhills wrote:
I don't think they are stupid. They are unenlightened (may not have access to external news sources - your people in the street don't have Internet) and brainwashed. There is a difference.

For me there is a really good chance that all of us are brainwashed to a certain extent any way. We very easily believe what politicians and/or powerful and mega rich groups who have control of the media want us to believe. So there is an excellent chance that we may be just as unenlightened. If we THINK we know the "truth", we probably may never be able to discover it. If we continuously investigate "the truth" with an open mind and from a position that we don't know and are searching, we may stand a greater chance of discovering shades of the truth.


^THIS, like how when you usually see this point raised it's concluded in a completely defeatist way - which is I think is a tragedy.

Quote:
I'd be monitoring North Korea very carefully though, as it could easily become a loose cannon doing stupid things to get the world's attention.


I did think their latest approach lacked subtlety somewhat - although it's most likely some kind of maneuvering, they wouldn't risk pissing off every other country (namely China) for resource reasons, I would say they'd just throw an Edo Period, just completely cut themselves off even more - but I don't think that's possible in this day and age.
Nick2008
I feel like we will be discussing and contemplating North Korea's actions and statements for a very long time, for it seems as though they are bringing out new threats every few days.

If they continue to make threats and talk the talk but not actually do anything, quite simply put - most of us will start ignoring their statements and will see it as just another occurrence of the same old.

Ultimately, we will never know when or if North Korea will launch an attack. It could happen in two days, or two decades, or never. North Korea's threats are seen as empty-handed and generally, the international community isn't really taking them seriously (yes, we're paying attention more and being more cautious, but nobody actually expects North Korea to make a move). As a result, we won't know if North Korea will attack until the battle actually starts because their words and threats have become meaningless.
Iceaxe0410
I think the thing that most people have to worry about is if the new leader just wants to make his mark in history. If he's one of those types of people, he would have no issue putting his entire country and people at risk if he will go down in history even if it results in total annihilation.

The more I read about it, the more I start to think that the U.S. and other neighboring countries wants North Korea to start a war. You have the sanctions that have pretty much killed the economy of North Korea for years. I honestly don't see what other choice they have. They can't really trade with other neighboring countries except China. So, they resort to threats to get aid.

You have the joint U.S. and South Korea drills they were conducting off the shores of North Korea. It really seemed unnecessary. The only reason for that would be to make a statement and provoke North Korea. This I don't agree with. It's almost as though the U.S. is making a statement to North Korea that they are getting ready for a military strike. You have former President Bush that labeled them as one of the "axis of evil" years ago. I'm sure they haven't forgotten about that. I'm sure the North Koreans think they are next on the list if Iran isn't.

North Korea serves as a sort of buffer between China and South Korea. South Korea who the U.S. is allied with. So, China, does have a particular interest in what happens with North Korea. I'm sure China does not want South Korea to absorb North Korea because of that especially since South Korea is allies with the U.S. It would effectively put U.S. military bases right at their doorstep.

You also have South Korea which seems to want to get rid of North Korea. It doesn't help that the president of South Korea indicated that he will immediately strike back if North Korea attacks.

This could turn very ugly very fast. While many people don't think anything will come of it. I think North Korea is making an unusually high amount of threats and actions. I would not call their bluff. Their new leader might just be crazy enough to start his own war if only to go down in history even if it's suicide.
Nick2008
Iceaxe0410 wrote:

You have the joint U.S. and South Korea drills they were conducting off the shores of North Korea. It really seemed unnecessary.


They have done military drills off the Korean peninsula for many years now, but the U.S. is now including stealth and strategic bombers in the drills. The use of bombers shows that they are not only practicing defensive measures but also possible air assaults.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/world/asia/us-begins-stealth-bombing-runs-over-south-korea.html?_r=0
ocalhoun
Nick2008 wrote:
. The use of bombers shows that they are not only practicing defensive measures but also possible air assaults.

When your enemy has lots of artillery in range of your bases, air assaults can be defensive measures.
Nick2008
ocalhoun wrote:

When your enemy has lots of artillery in range of your bases, air assaults can be defensive measures.


"The best defense is a good offense." In many ways that's true, but the military exercises held by South Korea and the U.S. have rarely used stealth bombers as seen earlier last month. Yes, it can be claimed that they could be used in a defensive response but it's also signaling that we are now willing to go further than ever before.

The U.S. is now moving its armed forces in response to North Korea's threats. A missile defense system is being put in place in Guam, the navy's posts are being reshuffled with destroyers being placed off the Korean peninsula, and the U.S. may have even stationed more of its strategic air forces, including bombers, in South Korea (although anything of this sort is most likely classified).

It does seem that the U.S. is now responding more than it has ever before, and that is worrying.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22021832
ocalhoun
Nick2008 wrote:

It does seem that the U.S. is now responding more than it has ever before, and that is worrying.


As Bill Mahr aptly put it recently, "With Afghanistan ramping down, the US is dangerously close to not having a war."
...and the military/industrial complex cannot afford that.

In their perspective, we've got to be at war with somebody*, and it might as well be N. Korea.

*If they're not at war with anyone, they'll not be able to justify the ludicrously inflated defense budgets, and that's unacceptable.

I tell you, until we fix our domestic political problems, there will always be a war going.
Related topics
Is a war between North and South Korea likely?
China makes push to restart talks with North Korea
How Will the World React to a Nuclear North Korea?
North Korea makes some gestures toward calm
North Korea launches 3 short-range missiles
North Korea tests a nuclear weapon
UN Approves North Korea Resolution
Tony Blair
North Korea (Allegedly) Succeeds at Nuclear Fusion
North Korea & The United States
North Korea conducts a 3rd nuclear test underground
Nuclear War?
U.S. to Put Patriot Missiles in Japan
Possible War with Korea
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.