Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Renovation Blog
Condo for rent or lease
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Truck for Sale
Reconstruction Blog
|
Culture & Politics » soc.culture.china » NK missile test: A Nuisance, Not a Threat
| NK missile test: A Nuisance, Not a Threat [message #223509] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 13:23 |
|
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6508
----------------------
A Nuisance, Not a Threat
by Ted Galen Carpenter
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy
studies at the Cato Institute.
Regardless of how many times North Korea tests its missiles, it does
not constitute an existential threat to the United States or its
allies.
In fact, some of the suggestions for a response to the missile tests
that have significantly increased international tensions are more
dangerous than the specter of a North Korean missile capability itself.
The missile tests compound North Korea's continual effort to process
plutonium for nuclear weapons, and the prospect of Pyongyang having not
only nuclear weapons but also the means to deliver them at considerable
distances has generated alarm in the United States and East Asia.
Hawks in the United States occasionally have advocated pre-emptive
airstrikes to take out Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and missile
programs.
Shortly before the seven missile tests Tuesday, former Clinton
administration Defense Secretary William J. Perry and Assistant
Secretary Ashton B. Carter suggested a strike to destroy the
Taepodong-2 missile while it was still on the launch pad. It was the
only one of the seven that had the potential to reach U.S. territory.
Prudent Americans should reject schemes for pre-emptive military
action. Such a strategy has a high probability of triggering a general
war on the Korean peninsula. The last Korean War killed millions of
Koreans and more than 50,000 American troops. Today, North Korea is
capable of firing about 300,000 artillery shells an hour into South
Korea's capital city, Seoul, where nearly half the nation's population
resides.
Proponents of pre-emptive strikes would risk the lives of millions of
South Koreans as well as the lives of the U.S. troops stationed in
South Korea on, at best, a long-shot gamble that Pyongyang would not
respond militarily to an attack on its territory, however much it
humiliated the regime. Responsible superpowers do not gamble so
recklessly.
Proposals for comprehensive economic sanctions, for which Japan is
pushing hard, are only a little less unrealistic and dangerous. To
date, China and Russia have strongly opposed sanctions against North
Korea, and unless they change their policies, the U.N. Security Council
is unlikely to adopt sanctions that would have any significant impact.
That is probably just as well. Sanctions have a dismal historical
record of getting regimes to abandon high-priority policies, and North
Korea clearly regards its nuclear and missile programs as
high-priority, high-prestige objectives. Pyongyang also has warned that
it would regard the imposition of international sanctions as an act of
war. Perhaps that is mere bluster, but it would be risky to find out.
Even if North Korea conducts additional tests of the Taepodong-2 and
other missiles, it is a manageable problem, not a mortal threat to U.S.
or regional security.
Granted, no sensible person wants the weird hermit kingdom to have
nuclear weapons or missile systems. But the United States has thousands
of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them with pinpoint
accuracy. We have deterred other strange and ruthless regimes in the
past, most notably the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin and China under
Mao Tse-tung. Both countries had far more nuclear weapons and missiles
than North Korea ever can hope to build.
We should be able to deter the likes of Kim Jong Il. The North Korean
regime, while bizarre and brutally repressive, has never shown signs of
suicidal behavior. And attacking the United States would definitely be
suicidal. Even attacking a U.S. treaty ally, such as Japan or South
Korea, would be extraordinarily risky.
Instead of supporting coercive measures, Washington should seek to
defuse tensions by proposing bilateral negotiations with North Korea on
a wide range of issues. Although the six-party talks on Pyongyang's
nuclear program have made slight progress over the past three years,
there is little evidence that the security situation in Northeast Asia
will improve substantially until there is a meaningful dialogue between
North Korea and the United States.
It would have been better if Washington had pursued such an initiative
before the missile tests because to do so now would seem to be
rewarding bad behavior on North Korea's part. Nevertheless, it is the
best option available.
Launching pre-emptive airstrikes or even imposing economic sanctions
would be far more provocative and dangerous than relying on deterrence
and trying to engage Pyongyang in productive diplomacy. We need cool
heads to prevail in Washington and the various East Asian capitals.
North Korea is an annoying problem, but it is not an overwhelming
threat.
---------------------------
|
|
|
| Why is Japan so hysterical? Re: NK missile test: A Nuisance, Not a Threat [message #223512 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 13:42 |
|
Taiwan's Chinatime has presented a good analysis.
http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-cont ent/0,3546,110504+112006071100081,00.html
Basically, Japan's hysteria has both external and internal factors.
External factor:
Japan spent a lot of time and effort try to seek a permanent seat in
the UN secuity council. The ill-fated attempt has caused Japan to lose
face big time. In addition, Japan has irrated its asian neighbors. This
caused the rejection of Japanese suggestion in the six nations talk
over NK. Result: Japan has become a nobody in north east Asia. Japan
wished to get the initiative back. So it acts hysterically to seek
attention and to show that Japan cannot be neglected.
Internal political factor:
Koizumi is about to leave his post. This initiates a power struggle
within the LDP. Japanese politicians want to stir up Japanese
nationalism. Hence the exaggerated response to NK missile test. To
appear tough is the politicians' way to gain the people's support.
ltlee1 wrote:
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6508
>
> ----------------------
> A Nuisance, Not a Threat
> by Ted Galen Carpenter
>
> Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy
> studies at the Cato Institute.
>
>
> Regardless of how many times North Korea tests its missiles, it does
> not constitute an existential threat to the United States or its
> allies.
>
> In fact, some of the suggestions for a response to the missile tests
> that have significantly increased international tensions are more
> dangerous than the specter of a North Korean missile capability itself.
>
>
> The missile tests compound North Korea's continual effort to process
> plutonium for nuclear weapons, and the prospect of Pyongyang having not
> only nuclear weapons but also the means to deliver them at considerable
> distances has generated alarm in the United States and East Asia.
>
> Hawks in the United States occasionally have advocated pre-emptive
> airstrikes to take out Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and missile
> programs.
>
> Shortly before the seven missile tests Tuesday, former Clinton
> administration Defense Secretary William J. Perry and Assistant
> Secretary Ashton B. Carter suggested a strike to destroy the
> Taepodong-2 missile while it was still on the launch pad. It was the
> only one of the seven that had the potential to reach U.S. territory.
>
> Prudent Americans should reject schemes for pre-emptive military
> action. Such a strategy has a high probability of triggering a general
> war on the Korean peninsula. The last Korean War killed millions of
> Koreans and more than 50,000 American troops. Today, North Korea is
> capable of firing about 300,000 artillery shells an hour into South
> Korea's capital city, Seoul, where nearly half the nation's population
> resides.
>
> Proponents of pre-emptive strikes would risk the lives of millions of
> South Koreans as well as the lives of the U.S. troops stationed in
> South Korea on, at best, a long-shot gamble that Pyongyang would not
> respond militarily to an attack on its territory, however much it
> humiliated the regime. Responsible superpowers do not gamble so
> recklessly.
>
> Proposals for comprehensive economic sanctions, for which Japan is
> pushing hard, are only a little less unrealistic and dangerous. To
> date, China and Russia have strongly opposed sanctions against North
> Korea, and unless they change their policies, the U.N. Security Council
> is unlikely to adopt sanctions that would have any significant impact.
>
> That is probably just as well. Sanctions have a dismal historical
> record of getting regimes to abandon high-priority policies, and North
> Korea clearly regards its nuclear and missile programs as
> high-priority, high-prestige objectives. Pyongyang also has warned that
> it would regard the imposition of international sanctions as an act of
> war. Perhaps that is mere bluster, but it would be risky to find out.
>
> Even if North Korea conducts additional tests of the Taepodong-2 and
> other missiles, it is a manageable problem, not a mortal threat to U.S.
> or regional security.
>
> Granted, no sensible person wants the weird hermit kingdom to have
> nuclear weapons or missile systems. But the United States has thousands
> of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them with pinpoint
> accuracy. We have deterred other strange and ruthless regimes in the
> past, most notably the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin and China under
> Mao Tse-tung. Both countries had far more nuclear weapons and missiles
> than North Korea ever can hope to build.
>
> We should be able to deter the likes of Kim Jong Il. The North Korean
> regime, while bizarre and brutally repressive, has never shown signs of
> suicidal behavior. And attacking the United States would definitely be
> suicidal. Even attacking a U.S. treaty ally, such as Japan or South
> Korea, would be extraordinarily risky.
>
> Instead of supporting coercive measures, Washington should seek to
> defuse tensions by proposing bilateral negotiations with North Korea on
> a wide range of issues. Although the six-party talks on Pyongyang's
> nuclear program have made slight progress over the past three years,
> there is little evidence that the security situation in Northeast Asia
> will improve substantially until there is a meaningful dialogue between
> North Korea and the United States.
>
> It would have been better if Washington had pursued such an initiative
> before the missile tests because to do so now would seem to be
> rewarding bad behavior on North Korea's part. Nevertheless, it is the
> best option available.
>
> Launching pre-emptive airstrikes or even imposing economic sanctions
> would be far more provocative and dangerous than relying on deterrence
> and trying to engage Pyongyang in productive diplomacy. We need cool
> heads to prevail in Washington and the various East Asian capitals.
> North Korea is an annoying problem, but it is not an overwhelming
> threat.
>
> ---------------------------
|
|
|
| Re: NK missile test: A Nuisance, Not a Threat [message #223519 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 14:14 |
|
regardless of what anyone, academics, UN secretary generals, GOd, Allah, -
regardless, the neocons will make up whatever they want and do whatever they
want and it won't make any difference. Whats the point of debating anything
anymore? I guess everyone is trying to ward of depression and stay in denial
to beleive we still have a democratic open free society where our opinions,
anyones opinions matter.
Go tell it to Napolean! Go on, write a letter to Hitler! go on, you think
they care what anyone thinks?
"its o.k. to rape and murder children" John Howard
"its o.k. to rape and murder kids" G W Bush
"Its o.k. to rape and murder toddlers" T Blair
UK/US/AU - Axis of Evil.
"ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152617019.817991.47950 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6508
>
> ----------------------
> A Nuisance, Not a Threat
> by Ted Galen Carpenter
>
> Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy
> studies at the Cato Institute.
>
>
> Regardless of how many times North Korea tests its missiles, it does
> not constitute an existential threat to the United States or its
> allies.
>
> In fact, some of the suggestions for a response to the missile tests
> that have significantly increased international tensions are more
> dangerous than the specter of a North Korean missile capability itself.
>
>
> The missile tests compound North Korea's continual effort to process
> plutonium for nuclear weapons, and the prospect of Pyongyang having not
> only nuclear weapons but also the means to deliver them at considerable
> distances has generated alarm in the United States and East Asia.
>
> Hawks in the United States occasionally have advocated pre-emptive
> airstrikes to take out Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and missile
> programs.
>
> Shortly before the seven missile tests Tuesday, former Clinton
> administration Defense Secretary William J. Perry and Assistant
> Secretary Ashton B. Carter suggested a strike to destroy the
> Taepodong-2 missile while it was still on the launch pad. It was the
> only one of the seven that had the potential to reach U.S. territory.
>
> Prudent Americans should reject schemes for pre-emptive military
> action. Such a strategy has a high probability of triggering a general
> war on the Korean peninsula. The last Korean War killed millions of
> Koreans and more than 50,000 American troops. Today, North Korea is
> capable of firing about 300,000 artillery shells an hour into South
> Korea's capital city, Seoul, where nearly half the nation's population
> resides.
>
> Proponents of pre-emptive strikes would risk the lives of millions of
> South Koreans as well as the lives of the U.S. troops stationed in
> South Korea on, at best, a long-shot gamble that Pyongyang would not
> respond militarily to an attack on its territory, however much it
> humiliated the regime. Responsible superpowers do not gamble so
> recklessly.
>
> Proposals for comprehensive economic sanctions, for which Japan is
> pushing hard, are only a little less unrealistic and dangerous. To
> date, China and Russia have strongly opposed sanctions against North
> Korea, and unless they change their policies, the U.N. Security Council
> is unlikely to adopt sanctions that would have any significant impact.
>
> That is probably just as well. Sanctions have a dismal historical
> record of getting regimes to abandon high-priority policies, and North
> Korea clearly regards its nuclear and missile programs as
> high-priority, high-prestige objectives. Pyongyang also has warned that
> it would regard the imposition of international sanctions as an act of
> war. Perhaps that is mere bluster, but it would be risky to find out.
>
> Even if North Korea conducts additional tests of the Taepodong-2 and
> other missiles, it is a manageable problem, not a mortal threat to U.S.
> or regional security.
>
> Granted, no sensible person wants the weird hermit kingdom to have
> nuclear weapons or missile systems. But the United States has thousands
> of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them with pinpoint
> accuracy. We have deterred other strange and ruthless regimes in the
> past, most notably the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin and China under
> Mao Tse-tung. Both countries had far more nuclear weapons and missiles
> than North Korea ever can hope to build.
>
> We should be able to deter the likes of Kim Jong Il. The North Korean
> regime, while bizarre and brutally repressive, has never shown signs of
> suicidal behavior. And attacking the United States would definitely be
> suicidal. Even attacking a U.S. treaty ally, such as Japan or South
> Korea, would be extraordinarily risky.
>
> Instead of supporting coercive measures, Washington should seek to
> defuse tensions by proposing bilateral negotiations with North Korea on
> a wide range of issues. Although the six-party talks on Pyongyang's
> nuclear program have made slight progress over the past three years,
> there is little evidence that the security situation in Northeast Asia
> will improve substantially until there is a meaningful dialogue between
> North Korea and the United States.
>
> It would have been better if Washington had pursued such an initiative
> before the missile tests because to do so now would seem to be
> rewarding bad behavior on North Korea's part. Nevertheless, it is the
> best option available.
>
> Launching pre-emptive airstrikes or even imposing economic sanctions
> would be far more provocative and dangerous than relying on deterrence
> and trying to engage Pyongyang in productive diplomacy. We need cool
> heads to prevail in Washington and the various East Asian capitals.
> North Korea is an annoying problem, but it is not an overwhelming
> threat.
>
> ---------------------------
>
|
|
|
| Re: Why is Japan so hysterical? Re: NK missile test: A Nuisance, Not a Threat [message #223562 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 17:31 |
|
Just let the N Korea wipe out the Japs land from the earth, that will solve
the NEA's crisis.
"ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152618135.040010.152610 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Taiwan's Chinatime has presented a good analysis.
>
>
http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-cont ent/0,3546,11050
4+112006071100081,00.html
>
> Basically, Japan's hysteria has both external and internal factors.
> External factor:
>
> Japan spent a lot of time and effort try to seek a permanent seat in
> the UN secuity council. The ill-fated attempt has caused Japan to lose
> face big time. In addition, Japan has irrated its asian neighbors. This
> caused the rejection of Japanese suggestion in the six nations talk
> over NK. Result: Japan has become a nobody in north east Asia. Japan
> wished to get the initiative back. So it acts hysterically to seek
> attention and to show that Japan cannot be neglected.
>
> Internal political factor:
>
> Koizumi is about to leave his post. This initiates a power struggle
> within the LDP. Japanese politicians want to stir up Japanese
> nationalism. Hence the exaggerated response to NK missile test. To
> appear tough is the politicians' way to gain the people's support.
>
>
>
>
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6508
> >
> > ----------------------
> > A Nuisance, Not a Threat
> > by Ted Galen Carpenter
> >
> > Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy
> > studies at the Cato Institute.
> >
> >
> > Regardless of how many times North Korea tests its missiles, it does
> > not constitute an existential threat to the United States or its
> > allies.
> >
> > In fact, some of the suggestions for a response to the missile tests
> > that have significantly increased international tensions are more
> > dangerous than the specter of a North Korean missile capability itself.
> >
> >
> > The missile tests compound North Korea's continual effort to process
> > plutonium for nuclear weapons, and the prospect of Pyongyang having not
> > only nuclear weapons but also the means to deliver them at considerable
> > distances has generated alarm in the United States and East Asia.
> >
> > Hawks in the United States occasionally have advocated pre-emptive
> > airstrikes to take out Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and missile
> > programs.
> >
> > Shortly before the seven missile tests Tuesday, former Clinton
> > administration Defense Secretary William J. Perry and Assistant
> > Secretary Ashton B. Carter suggested a strike to destroy the
> > Taepodong-2 missile while it was still on the launch pad. It was the
> > only one of the seven that had the potential to reach U.S. territory.
> >
> > Prudent Americans should reject schemes for pre-emptive military
> > action. Such a strategy has a high probability of triggering a general
> > war on the Korean peninsula. The last Korean War killed millions of
> > Koreans and more than 50,000 American troops. Today, North Korea is
> > capable of firing about 300,000 artillery shells an hour into South
> > Korea's capital city, Seoul, where nearly half the nation's population
> > resides.
> >
> > Proponents of pre-emptive strikes would risk the lives of millions of
> > South Koreans as well as the lives of the U.S. troops stationed in
> > South Korea on, at best, a long-shot gamble that Pyongyang would not
> > respond militarily to an attack on its territory, however much it
> > humiliated the regime. Responsible superpowers do not gamble so
> > recklessly.
> >
> > Proposals for comprehensive economic sanctions, for which Japan is
> > pushing hard, are only a little less unrealistic and dangerous. To
> > date, China and Russia have strongly opposed sanctions against North
> > Korea, and unless they change their policies, the U.N. Security Council
> > is unlikely to adopt sanctions that would have any significant impact.
> >
> > That is probably just as well. Sanctions have a dismal historical
> > record of getting regimes to abandon high-priority policies, and North
> > Korea clearly regards its nuclear and missile programs as
> > high-priority, high-prestige objectives. Pyongyang also has warned that
> > it would regard the imposition of international sanctions as an act of
> > war. Perhaps that is mere bluster, but it would be risky to find out.
> >
> > Even if North Korea conducts additional tests of the Taepodong-2 and
> > other missiles, it is a manageable problem, not a mortal threat to U.S.
> > or regional security.
> >
> > Granted, no sensible person wants the weird hermit kingdom to have
> > nuclear weapons or missile systems. But the United States has thousands
> > of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them with pinpoint
> > accuracy. We have deterred other strange and ruthless regimes in the
> > past, most notably the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin and China under
> > Mao Tse-tung. Both countries had far more nuclear weapons and missiles
> > than North Korea ever can hope to build.
> >
> > We should be able to deter the likes of Kim Jong Il. The North Korean
> > regime, while bizarre and brutally repressive, has never shown signs of
> > suicidal behavior. And attacking the United States would definitely be
> > suicidal. Even attacking a U.S. treaty ally, such as Japan or South
> > Korea, would be extraordinarily risky.
> >
> > Instead of supporting coercive measures, Washington should seek to
> > defuse tensions by proposing bilateral negotiations with North Korea on
> > a wide range of issues. Although the six-party talks on Pyongyang's
> > nuclear program have made slight progress over the past three years,
> > there is little evidence that the security situation in Northeast Asia
> > will improve substantially until there is a meaningful dialogue between
> > North Korea and the United States.
> >
> > It would have been better if Washington had pursued such an initiative
> > before the missile tests because to do so now would seem to be
> > rewarding bad behavior on North Korea's part. Nevertheless, it is the
> > best option available.
> >
> > Launching pre-emptive airstrikes or even imposing economic sanctions
> > would be far more provocative and dangerous than relying on deterrence
> > and trying to engage Pyongyang in productive diplomacy. We need cool
> > heads to prevail in Washington and the various East Asian capitals.
> > North Korea is an annoying problem, but it is not an overwhelming
> > threat.
> >
> > ---------------------------
>
|
|
|
| Re: Why is Japan so hysterical? Re: NK missile test: A Nuisance, Not a Threat [message #223702 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 06:31 |
|
Yaya =E3=81=AE=E3=83=A1=E3=83=83=E3=82=BB=E3=83=BC=E3=82=B8:
> Just let the N Korea wipe out the Japs land from the earth, that will sol=
ve
> the NEA's crisis.
We will wipe out the little island of Singapore before Koreans do it.
|
|
|
| Re: NK missile test: A Nuisance, Not a Threat [message #223776 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 17:08 |
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7193024010983572797& amp;q=911
This is quite a different angle I've seen on it. The main spokespeople
exposing this "new pearl harbour" as part of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC) are now warning us that we don't want mainstream(is
that you?) to find out TOO quickly because it will cause anarchy.
But hey, if you want to know the truth about 911 and 7/7 and BaliBombings,
then that link above is a good start. If you want to verify any of the
claims there is evidence all over the internet and just search "911" at
video.Google.com
Enjoy - I'm not sure what we are to do about it and what may happen but I
can say that its very exciting to be on the inside like this whereas people
are walking around thinking all this rubbish about jihadists and so forth -
its all mainstream cattle pellets - just stock rubbish to keep you all
working and stupid like good little ants.
Personally I don't agree with covert government. I believe in open
government where people are all informed and can make informed decisions and
also have informed debates about our issues as humanity while we share our
lives here on earth awake. There is no reason to believe that these
secretive oligarchs - which is how they behave - have a better insight as to
what we need and should have. And this is exactly what they are doing.
I want to share this with people because I want them to know what's
happening so they can decide for themselves. I can tell you that the
mainstream media is a propaganda machine and everything told on it has an
agenda. If the truth conflicts with their agenda then they lie. And they lie
ALL the time.
--
"We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted
concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers that are cited to
justify it.
There is very grave danger that unannounced need for increased security will
be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of
official censorship and concealment." (JFK)
A MUST LISTEN:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8789700203199905805& amp;q=JFK
"No war ever posed a greater threat to our security. A monolithic and
ruthless conspiracy"
On the illuminati and zionism:
http://www.erichufschmid.net/BenjaminFreedmansSpeech16.mp3
http://usa-the-republic.com/audio/index.html
Daryl Bradford Smith:
www.iamthewitness.com
Professor Steven Jones proof of WTC demolition explosives:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
--
"We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted
concealment of pertinant facts far outweighed the dangers that are cited to
justify it.
There is very grave danger that anannounced need for increased security will
be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of
offical censorship and concealment." (JFK)
A MUST LISTEN:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8789700203199905805& amp;q=JFK
"No war ever posed a greater threat to our security. A monolithic and
ruthless conspiracy"
On the illuminati and zionism:
http://www.erichufschmid.net/BenjaminFreedmansSpeech16.mp3
http://usa-the-republic.com/audio/index.html
Daryl Bradford Smith:
www.iamthewitness.com
Professor Steven Jones proof of WTC demolition explosives:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
"ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152617019.817991.47950 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6508
>
> ----------------------
> A Nuisance, Not a Threat
> by Ted Galen Carpenter
>
> Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy
> studies at the Cato Institute.
>
>
> Regardless of how many times North Korea tests its missiles, it does
> not constitute an existential threat to the United States or its
> allies.
>
> In fact, some of the suggestions for a response to the missile tests
> that have significantly increased international tensions are more
> dangerous than the specter of a North Korean missile capability itself.
>
>
> The missile tests compound North Korea's continual effort to process
> plutonium for nuclear weapons, and the prospect of Pyongyang having not
> only nuclear weapons but also the means to deliver them at considerable
> distances has generated alarm in the United States and East Asia.
>
> Hawks in the United States occasionally have advocated pre-emptive
> airstrikes to take out Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and missile
> programs.
>
> Shortly before the seven missile tests Tuesday, former Clinton
> administration Defense Secretary William J. Perry and Assistant
> Secretary Ashton B. Carter suggested a strike to destroy the
> Taepodong-2 missile while it was still on the launch pad. It was the
> only one of the seven that had the potential to reach U.S. territory.
>
> Prudent Americans should reject schemes for pre-emptive military
> action. Such a strategy has a high probability of triggering a general
> war on the Korean peninsula. The last Korean War killed millions of
> Koreans and more than 50,000 American troops. Today, North Korea is
> capable of firing about 300,000 artillery shells an hour into South
> Korea's capital city, Seoul, where nearly half the nation's population
> resides.
>
> Proponents of pre-emptive strikes would risk the lives of millions of
> South Koreans as well as the lives of the U.S. troops stationed in
> South Korea on, at best, a long-shot gamble that Pyongyang would not
> respond militarily to an attack on its territory, however much it
> humiliated the regime. Responsible superpowers do not gamble so
> recklessly.
>
> Proposals for comprehensive economic sanctions, for which Japan is
> pushing hard, are only a little less unrealistic and dangerous. To
> date, China and Russia have strongly opposed sanctions against North
> Korea, and unless they change their policies, the U.N. Security Council
> is unlikely to adopt sanctions that would have any significant impact.
>
> That is probably just as well. Sanctions have a dismal historical
> record of getting regimes to abandon high-priority policies, and North
> Korea clearly regards its nuclear and missile programs as
> high-priority, high-prestige objectives. Pyongyang also has warned that
> it would regard the imposition of international sanctions as an act of
> war. Perhaps that is mere bluster, but it would be risky to find out.
>
> Even if North Korea conducts additional tests of the Taepodong-2 and
> other missiles, it is a manageable problem, not a mortal threat to U.S.
> or regional security.
>
> Granted, no sensible person wants the weird hermit kingdom to have
> nuclear weapons or missile systems. But the United States has thousands
> of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them with pinpoint
> accuracy. We have deterred other strange and ruthless regimes in the
> past, most notably the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin and China under
> Mao Tse-tung. Both countries had far more nuclear weapons and missiles
> than North Korea ever can hope to build.
>
> We should be able to deter the likes of Kim Jong Il. The North Korean
> regime, while bizarre and brutally repressive, has never shown signs of
> suicidal behavior. And attacking the United States would definitely be
> suicidal. Even attacking a U.S. treaty ally, such as Japan or South
> Korea, would be extraordinarily risky.
>
> Instead of supporting coercive measures, Washington should seek to
> defuse tensions by proposing bilateral negotiations with North Korea on
> a wide range of issues. Although the six-party talks on Pyongyang's
> nuclear program have made slight progress over the past three years,
> there is little evidence that the security situation in Northeast Asia
> will improve substantially until there is a meaningful dialogue between
> North Korea and the United States.
>
> It would have been better if Washington had pursued such an initiative
> before the missile tests because to do so now would seem to be
> rewarding bad behavior on North Korea's part. Nevertheless, it is the
> best option available.
>
> Launching pre-emptive airstrikes or even imposing economic sanctions
> would be far more provocative and dangerous than relying on deterrence
> and trying to engage Pyongyang in productive diplomacy. We need cool
> heads to prevail in Washington and the various East Asian capitals.
> North Korea is an annoying problem, but it is not an overwhelming
> threat.
>
> ---------------------------
>
|
|
|
| Re: Why is Japan so hysterical? Re: NK missile test: A Nuisance, Not a Threat [message #225126 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 14:54 |
|
Come and do it now lah.
Imperialist Japs did not do it in WWII.
"Dr. bitter anko" <kaz762 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152678678.986550.188110 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yaya ??????:
> Just let the N Korea wipe out the Japs land from the earth, that will
solve
> the NEA's crisis.
We will wipe out the little island of Singapore before Koreans do it.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: So Mai 27 16:15:55 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05114 Sekunden |
