The problem with a preemptive strike doctrine.

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03...nkorea-us_x.htm

 

SEOUL (AP) — North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency.

 

A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat.

[samclemens]

sorry i just dont trust north korean official statements. its all pure propaganda. i dont think they can reach the US with missiles. if someone can prove me wrong, i will tip my hat to them.

[CrimsonWeltall]

'hey we want to be in the news'

[WCSox]

That midget in Pyongyang cracks me up. What's the matter, little man? Is "Jihad Monkey" in Iran stealing all of your thunder?

Edited March 21, 2006 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

sorry i just dont trust north korean official statements. its all pure propaganda. i dont think they can reach the US with missiles. if someone can prove me wrong, i will tip my hat to them.

It is believed that either now or within a very short number of years (i.e. before Iran even gets the bomb) North Korea will have missiles with the capability to strike the west coast of the United States. They also are likely very close to having submarine-based launch capability through submarines and equipment purchased from Russia (with intermediary help of Rev. Moon), which could also launch nuclear strikes on the U.S. Reuters and Janes' reported that a few years ago.

[Pauly8509CWS]

I'm actually getting scared here, this s*** disturbs me.

[WCSox]

We won't be the only ones to use it.

 

It's not like pre-emptive strikes against the U.S. are a novel concept. I seem to remember one occurring back in December of 1941.

Edited March 22, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

But an open doctrine of preemptive warfare is something that was not readily used in the past. Which is why the doctrine that we articulated in 2002 was so dangerous. When the big kid in the sandbox starts using it, it lets the smaller mean kids to start using it too.

[WCSox]

But an open doctrine of preemptive warfare is something that was not readily used in the past.

 

Most of Europe is still kicking itself for not launching pre-emptive strikes on Nazi Germany back in the '30s.

 

I don't know about you, but I don't want to wait for Iran to fulfill their promise of "wiping Israel off the face of the Earth" before the UN considers the idea of removing the Mullahs.

Edited March 22, 2006 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

Most of Europe is still kicking itself for not launching pre-emptive strikes on Nazi Germany back in the '30s.

And Britain is also pretty thankful that it didn't launch a preemptive strike against the U.S. in the late 20's before the London Naval treaty was signed. And the U.S. is pretty happy it didn't launch a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union.

[southsideirish71]

But an open doctrine of preemptive warfare is something that was not readily used in the past. Which is why the doctrine that we articulated in 2002 was so dangerous. When the big kid in the sandbox starts using it, it lets the smaller mean kids to start using it too.

 

Even the short goof that runs Korea has to know that any missle that comes from his little land will immediately mean that Korea is gone. I mean gone like there used to be a country known as North Korea, gone.

 

A nice 10 megaton weapon detonating over his house would probably wake him up.

[mr_genius]

It's not like pre-emptive strikes against the U.S. are a novel concept.  I seem to remember one occurring back in December of 1941.

 

how dare you bring that up. Japan was just freedom fighting against United States and the evil, capitalist, white male oppressors.

 

duh

[WCSox]

And the U.S. is pretty happy it didn't launch a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union.

 

Did the Kremlin fund Islamic terrorist attacks against the U.S. and promise to wipe a U.S. ally off the map in the infancy of its nuclear weapons program?

 

And Britain is also pretty thankful that it didn't launch a preemptive strike against the U.S. in the late 20's before the London Naval treaty was signed. 

 

Too bad the Brits didn't launch pre-emptive strikes against Japan and Italy, who later weaseled their way out of the treaty and became part of the Axis.

Edited March 22, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

Did the Kremlin fund Islamic terrorist attacks against the U.S. and promise to wipe a U.S. ally off the map in the infancy of its nuclear weapons program?

 

No, but the US did fund Islamic terrorist attacks against the Kremlin's interests in Afghanistan.

[Balta1701]

No, but the US did fund Islamic terrorist attacks against the Kremlin's interests in Afghanistan.

Of course Russia funded terrorist attacks against the U.S., if we're willing to define terrorist widely enough. Those SAM's shooting down planes in North Vietnam weren't exactly made in Vietnamese factories. Those Mig 15's dueling with F-86's over North Korea weren't speaking Russian to their Korean ground controllers. Kruschev banging his shoe on the table at the U.N. shouting "We Will Bury You" wasn't exactly the greatest moment in diplomacy.

Edited March 22, 2006 by Balta1701

[WCSox]

No, but the US did fund Islamic terrorist attacks against the Kremlin's interests in Afghanistan.

 

Sure, after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and caused a massive humanitarian disaster.

[Rex Kickass]

And Islamoterrorism made that better how?

[WCSox]

And Islamoterrorism made that better how?

 

Well, it stopped the Soviets from slaughtering Arabs and destroying villages. Is that a good enough reason?

 

If you're not happy with the way that the Soviets were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan, would you have preferred that we sent American troops to wage a "proper" head-on war with the Soviets?

[Rex Kickass]

No, I'm saying sending 67,000 tons of weapons a year during the 1980s to the same terrorists we're fighting against and then allowing a power vacuum to exist in Afghanistan from 1990 to 1994 does not help a humanitarian crisis.

[WCSox]

No, I'm saying sending 67,000 tons of weapons a year during the 1980s to the same terrorists we're fighting against and then allowing a power vacuum to exist in Afghanistan from 1990 to 1994 does not help a humanitarian crisis.

 

You're right. We should've just let the Soviets impose their will on whomever they wanted.

[Rex Kickass]

Nope, you're right. Supporting terrorists is clearly the right thing to do.

[samclemens]

Nope, you're right. Supporting terrorists is clearly the right thing to do.

 

you are doing a lot of criticizing and complaining about our anti-soviet policy in afghanistan during the cold war, yet you have offered nothing that even resembles a solution. what, then, should we have done?

[Rex Kickass]

A good thing to not have done was fuel a low level civil war in an occupation of another country with the goal of weakening the occupying government....

 

Wait where have I heard that before?

[WCSox]

Nope, you're right. Supporting terrorists is clearly the right thing to do.

 

More often than not, I'll support poor terrorists who live in shacks and bathe once a month over an imperialist, communist nation with nuclear weapons.

[Cknolls]

It is believed that either now or within a very short number of years (i.e. before Iran even gets the bomb) North Korea will have missiles with the capability to strike the west coast of the United States.  They also are likely very close to having submarine-based launch capability through submarines and equipment purchased from Russia (with intermediary help of Rev. Moon), which could also launch nuclear strikes on the U.S.  Reuters and Janes' reported that a few years ago.

 

Glad I live in Chicago.