Kim Jong Il puts his third son in charge of spy agency

[Spadesy]

For those who don't know, Kim Jong Il's first son is a reject residing in China who made his dad blush red when he tried to enter Japan illegally, his second son is a hippie who attended university in Europe, likes Eric Clapton and doesn't approve of his father's policies, and his third son is a mini-me replica of his pop and is only aged in his mid twenties.

http://wcco.com/national/Kim.Jong.Un.2.1057266.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) ―
South Korean protesters shout slogans beside pictures of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il (left) and a boy (right), believed to be the leader's third son Jong-Un during a rally denouncing North Korea's missile threat.
Jung Yeon-Je/Getty Images

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has put his youngest son in charge of the country's spy agency in a move aimed at handing the communist regime over to him, a news report said Wednesday.

Kim visited the headquarters of the State Security Department in March, along with his 26-year-old third son, Kim Jong Un, and told agency leaders to "uphold" the son as head of the department, the Dong-a Ilbo newspaper reported citing an unnamed source.

Kim also told department leaders to "safeguard comrade Kim Jong Un with (your) lives as you did for me in the past," and gave them five foreign-made cars, each worth some $80,000, as gifts, the mass-market daily said.

It said Kim visited a college that educates spy agents last month and made similar remarks there.

Pyongyang's State Security Department is the backbone of Kim's harsh rule over the totalitarian nation. It keeps a close watch over government agencies, the military and ordinary people for any signs of dissent. It also engages in spy missions abroad.

The move to put Jong Un in charge of the agency illustrates Kim's concern about any possible backlash that the father-to-son succession could prompt, the Dong-a said.

The paper also said Jong Un oversaw the handling of two American journalists detained in March while on a reporting trip to the China-North Korea border. The reporters were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor earlier this month for illegal border crossing and hostile acts.

South Korea's main spy agency, the National Intelligence Service, said it could not confirm the Dong-a report.

Who will eventually rule the nuclear-armed North has been the focus of intense media speculation since leader Kim, 67, reportedly suffered a stroke last summer. That sparked regional concerns about instability and a possible power struggle if he died without naming a successor.

The succession talk has further intensified after Seoul's spy agency reported to lawmakers early this month that the regime in Pyongyang notified its diplomatic missions and government agencies that Jong Un will be the next leader.

Seoul's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper reported earlier this month that Jong Un was given the title of "Brilliant Comrade," another sign that the regime is preparing to name him as successor.

Kim Jong Il inherited North Korea after his father and founding leader Kim Il Sung died in 1994.

On Tuesday, the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper carried a remark by Kim Jong Il that could be seen as a justification of the father-to-son succession.

"Our resolution is winning victory after victory because the bloodline" of the country's self-reliance ideology has been succeeded through generations.

This whole situation with North Korea is making me a bit anxious.

[Reidar]

Not me, really. They're necrotic (Kim Jong-il is only the head of the party - the actual President is his dead father, still) attention whores inferior in might and technological power with no close allies, unlike Iran and its web of influence over neighboring gulf states. Even Russia and China joined in condemning them, albeit relatively mildly. A primitive nuke is still a nuke and any first strike would be devastating, but it would also effectively mean the end of North Korea.

[superplough]

^ He's so ronery.

[Till]

Hopefully Kim will do the world a collective favor and punch out sooner then later. The sooner Jr. becomes the New Leader the harder it will be for him to hold the reign's of his handler's and military puppet's.

[Spadesy]

Not me, really. They're necrotic (Kim Jong-il is only the head of the party - the actual President is his dead father, still) attention whores inferior in might and technological power with no close allies, unlike Iran and its web of influence over neighboring gulf states. Even Russia and China joined in condemning them, albeit relatively mildly. A primitive nuke is still a nuke and any first strike would be devastating, but it would also effectively mean the end of North Korea.

If the bastards can fire a missile and make it plop in the ocean after passing Hokkaido, I'm sure they could manage to build something that could target Okinawa. And that would suck, because a missile strike is not how I wanna go out.

But seriously, it's a delicate situation. The mere act of intercepting a ship they got hanging by Burma would be considered a declaration of war, they withdrew the half-a-century old cease fire just last month...they're definitely up to something, even if it's just Kim Jong Il engaging in political ******ry before he gets too old and dies.

And China would, for sure, back up DPRK if we did anything to them first. Meanwhile D.C is kicking and screaming at them to put a leash on their dog. Blah.

And then you got the morons saying "let's just drop a nuke on them hur hur hur!" Yeah, and later have to deal with the worst humanitarian crisis in modern history...Koreans flooding the Chinese border and being internally displaced in general.

Some serious media about North Korea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Eni4...eature=related

Some not-so-serious media about North Korea:
http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww174/sopmod/northkoreawastchesu.jpg

[Tidusauron12]

If they nuke anyone, IT'S ON.

[goddessofanime]

They're determined that they're going to start another war.

[Bernard_Monsha]

The People's Council for celebration of the annual celebrataory address to the celebration of the peoples Juchi recognize the greatness of our Lode Star of the 21st Century, Peerless Leader, Beloved Leader, Great Leader, Dear Leader, Great Suryong, he Sun of Revolution, the Sun of Life, the Sun of Juche, Father of all Koreans and his wisdom in creating the People's Commitee for overseeing celebration of the celebratory The People's Council for celebration of the annual celebrataory address to the celebration of the peoples Juchi. He also shouts storms and melts glaciers, such is the power of the Peoples Juche (http://www.robpongi.com/pages/comboKIMJONGIL.html)!


Also the Committee for the People's Juche Addressing the Correct Mind against the Imperialist Oppressor's Council of the Internet has properly expressed these Films about the Great Father and Champion of Ages and his fight against the Imperialist on the Imperialist own website for suppression of the People's Juche. (http://www.youtube.com/user/Songunblog)

[Reidar]

If the bastards can fire a missile and make it plop in the ocean after passing Hokkaido, I'm sure they could manage to build something that could target Okinawa. And that would suck, because a missile strike is not how I wanna go out.

But seriously, it's a delicate situation. The mere act of intercepting a ship they got hanging by Burma would be considered a declaration of war, they withdrew the half-a-century old cease fire just last month...they're definitely up to something, even if it's just Kim Jong Il engaging in political ******ry before he gets too old and dies.

And China would, for sure, back up DPRK if we did anything to them first. Meanwhile D.C is kicking and screaming at them to put a leash on their dog. Blah.

Actually, both Taepodong models (cue laugh track) already have range well past Okinawa. "Inferior in might and technological power" didn't equate to them not being capable of attacking anybody - that would be absurd.

It's not really a delicate situation, either. The regime will exude belligerence no matter what actions are taken. Somehow prompting them would only be starting the inevitability of a mentally unstable power sooner rather than later.

And China has much more at stake in forsaking the U.S. and their mutual economic dependence than it does with North Korea. Already there are internal rumblings (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-china-korea27-2009may27,0,4005894.story) on the value of the relationship. China gets much less back from North Korea than it gives them.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

What we need is Spadesy, SapperSix and Bernard Monsha.

and then I'll be able to go to North Korea and spread the Prons genes into the Korean gene pool

[Old Ape Face]

What we need is Spadesy, SapperSix and Bernard Monsha.

and then I'll be able to go to North Korea and spread the Prons genes into the Korean gene pool

And they commit nuclear suicide while you are dancing naked in front of Kim Jong Il.
----------

On a more serious possibly off topic note, I've been seriously losing sleep on the idea that someone could possibly nuke New York City, with it's blast radius consuming anything around it for 200+ miles, Which would inevitably put my house right in the firing range.

I would like to know when my time to move out is going to be :D and whether or not any of our foreign enemies are even capable of such an attack on our extremely vulnerable city of economics.

[Caster13]

I'm in the safe zone of this. Not much can be bombed here in Arizona, not with LA and Las Vegas being so much more tempting targets. And with Area 51 also being within relative vicinity, I'm pretty safe.

[Tidusauron12]

I live in Orange Park, a suburb of Jacksonville. We have a military/naval base here. It's like, ten miles from my house. I'm screwed if it gets nuked. :lol:

Not that any of you should be thinking that NK has the capability of nuking LA, NYC, or my city of Jacksonville.

[Caster13]

I know that North Korea couldn't nuke us. Their first target would be Japan.

inb4 4chan loses it.

[Old Ape Face]

I live in Orange Park, a suburb of Jacksonville. We have a military/naval base here. It's like, ten miles from my house. I'm screwed if it gets nuked. :lol:

Not that any of you should be thinking that NK has the capability of nuking LA, NYC, or my city of Jacksonville.

after reading this thread my concern isn't with North Korea, but Iraq, and those Muslim Countries might surprise us.

As they did with 911

[Caster13]

after reading this thread my concern isn't with North Korea, but Iraq, and those Muslim Countries might surprise us.

As they did with 911

:facepalm: oh my g...HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING UNDER A ROCK!!?!?! Iraq isn't a threat anymore you idiot!!!:facepalm:

This is so stupid that I have no idea how to properly describe it.

[Old Ape Face]

:facepalm: oh my g...HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING UNDER A ROCK!!?!?! Iraq isn't a threat anymore you idiot!!!:facepalm:

This is so stupid that I have no idea how to properly describe it.

Ok not Iraq, but I can't really explain who to point a finger at, what if I pointed at Al Queda or Pakistan, or all those religious countries who would love nothing more than to see our glorious wealth of life vanish before their eyes becuase we are too involved with their affairs of which we need.

We are not invincible dude, and I'm not an idiot who is going to ignore a country just becuase we did a strip search, there are other countries that are capable of that. There are counties in the middle east capable of nuking Israel even, what happens if they bombed that? There would be a never ending war.

[Reidar]

Pakistan is an American ally (albeit a corrupt one).

[goddessofanime]

I live in the country suburbs of Philly.

I also live about an hour away from Baltimore and Newark Delaware.

I am pretty much screwed if a nuke hits either of those cities.

Of course it could also mean that instead of cows with two eyes, they would have three.

[KatayokuのTenshi]

after reading this thread my concern isn't with North Korea, but Iraq ... might surprise us.

Surprise! There were weapons of mass destruction. And guess what? Despite all evidence to the contrary we'd like nothing more than to use them on you! Boy is your face red. :lol:

Yeah, don't think so somehow.

Ok not Iraq, but I can't really explain who to point a finger at, what if I pointed at Al Queda or Pakistan, or all those religious countries who would love nothing more than to see our glorious wealth of life vanish before their eyes becuase we are too involved with their affairs of which we need.

:facepalm:

Where to begin? Ok. I'll just go for the two most obvious ones.

1. Pakistan: :facepalm:
2. Al-Qaeda isn't a country.

[SapperSix]

If we do invade North Korea at some point in time, I know I'll be at the very front breaching North Koreas main defenses so that the main forces come through and do there thing.

[Bernard_Monsha]

If we do invade North Korea at some point in time, I know I'll be at the very front breaching North Koreas main defenses so that the main forces come through and do there thing.


Be sure to have any Jewish Marines jaywalk. North Koreans hate jaywalking Jews.

[Old Ape Face]

Surprise! There were weapons of mass destruction. And guess what? Despite all evidence to the contrary we'd like nothing more than to use them on you! Boy is your face red. :lol:

Yeah, don't think so somehow.

I'd be dead before you pushed the button, That's why I'd like to know when you're going to push the button.

[Reidar]

This (http://www.vfwpost7591.org/opn-PB.html) is the kind of philosophy that we need to employ against them, coined by one military thinker as the "**** this, get the chainsaws" strategy.

Cliff notes: U.S. and South Korea want to trim tree along border. North Koreans say no. Trimming begins anyways. North Koreans say, "NO! STOOOOOP IT!" Trimming continues. North Koreans attack and kill both Americans with axes. Americans and S. Koreans later return with huge convoy of military vehicles armed with chainsaws and begin cutting down the tree as a show of force, accompanied by a group of ROK special forces expertly trained in Tae Kwon Do. Kim Il-sung apologizes.

There's also the North Korean propaganda village (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijong-dong) just beyond the border, constructed early on to look like a luxuriously lavish town so South Koreans would be convinced to defect, in reality an empty structure with the nicely painted side being the visible part. When this all failed, loud pro-regime speeches and music blared from loudspeakers set-up. South Korea responds by assembling their own speakers and blasting unbearably loud K-Pop (presumably causing the North Koreans' heads to explode like in Mars Attacks).

So, in conclusion, we need an army of chainsaw-wielding Tae Kwon Do fighters set to Rain and Wonder Girls.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Wonder Girls.

Yes please.


Also I don't think North Korea is going to attack anyone, they're just going to keep being emo until someone stops paying attention to them

[Trefellin]

North Korea isn't going to attack anyone. Kim Jong Il just wants everyone to think he has a huge **** so nobody comes in and messes with his little regime and brainwashing.

[Spadesy]

Actually, both Taepodong models (cue laugh track) already have range well past Okinawa. "Inferior in might and technological power" didn't equate to them not being capable of attacking anybody - that would be absurd.

To range past Okinawa, yes. To land a TD on its intended target unlike the other launches...questionable.

It's not really a delicate situation, either. The regime will exude belligerence no matter what actions are taken. Somehow prompting them would only be starting the inevitability of a mentally unstable power sooner rather than later.

I disagree. If the U.S was more confident on the intended course of action from DPRK, we'd be taking a much less passive stance...doing more than "waiting to see what happens" and insisting they continue talks with us and other Asian nations.

And China has much more at stake in forsaking the U.S. and their mutual economic dependence than it does with North Korea. Already there are internal rumblings (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-china-korea27-2009may27,0,4005894.story) on the value of the relationship. China gets much less back from North Korea than it gives them.

Do they? Hu Jintao made it clear a while back they will defend North Korea if the U.S is the first to act. North Korea has much more value to China than the economy.

"The idea that the Chinese would turn their backs on the North Koreans is clearly wrong," says Adam Segal, CFR senior fellow for China studies...
They're becoming a stakeholder in the North Korean economy," Pinkston says.
"For the Chinese, stability and the avoidance of war are the top priorities," says Daniel Sneider, the associate director for research at Stanford's Asia-Pacific Research Center. "From that point of view, the North Koreans are a huge problem for them, because Pyongyang could trigger a war on its own." Stability is a huge worry for Beijing because of the specter of hundreds of thousands of North Korean refugees flooding into China. "The Chinese are most concerned about the collapse of North Korea leading to chaos on the border," Segal says.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11097/chinanorth_korea_relationship.html

[Reidar]

To range past Okinawa, yes. To land a TD on its intended target unlike the other launches...questionable.

"...I'm sure they could manage to build something that could target Okinawa."

Landing on target is not targeting. In addressing your initial point and nothing more, they already have missiles that can target Okinawa.

The wager of the accuracy is pretty irrelevant to it, actually - the potentiality to target and hit is the grounds for the aforementioned anxiousness. Actually hitting would warrant much more than being "anxious".

I disagree. If the U.S was more confident on the intended course of action from DPRK, we'd be taking a much less passive stance...doing more than "waiting to see what happens" and insisting they continue talks with us and other Asian nations.

Er, this is tautological. "If we're more confident, we'd be less passive." Well yeah, obviously. And what would that even do? It just proves the irrelevance of anyone's actions since you can't predict any positive behavioral changes on North Korea's part.

Do they? Hu Jintao made it clear a while back they will defend North Korea if the U.S is the first to act. North Korea has much more value to China than the economy.

China has never prioritized relations like that, and seriously, who takes politicians at face value? China and America have little ideological common ground in public, but both have mutual dependence on the other's economy, in extremely simplistic deductions. The former is something to tout on the world stage, not, "We value our unbreakable relationship with the United States in our need to purchase U.S. Treasury debt because nothing else can satiate our absurd output of consumer goods."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11097/chinanorth_korea_relationship.html

My link addressed a lot of that. First sentence: "China is North Korea's most important ally, biggest trading partner, and main source of food, arms, and fuel."

Exactly what I said: China gets much less back from North Korea than it gives them. Note that it's not vice-versa. It goes on to support my point:

"After Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006, experts say that China has reconsidered the nature of its alliance to include both pressure and inducements."

"Turning their backs" on North Korea is an impossibility at this point and wasn't the argument, just that they wouldn't forsake the U.S. when it came down to it.

[Mosinmatt]

This just in....We are ****ing screwed. I just hope Congress and Obama are smart enough to leave this alone.
We really don't need to worry about ourselves at the moment. But Japan and South Korea. They say that NK can drop 100,000 arty shells on SK in a moments notice.
World is really going into the crapper these days.

[Jia]

I don't really care for politics. But that kid has an awful bowl cut.

[Spadesy]

"...I'm sure they could manage to build something that could target Okinawa."

Landing on target is not targeting. In addressing your initial point and nothing more, they already have missiles that can target Okinawa.

"Could manage to build," yields time sensitivity - the future. What we are currently worried about.

Landing on target is successful targeting...would I attempt to target a ship if my intention was to not hit it? That wouldn't be targeting. That would be more like "throwing weapons in the direction of..." Yes, they absolutely do have missiles that can range Okinawa and beyond.

The wager of the accuracy is pretty irrelevant to it, actually - the potentiality to target and hit is the grounds for the aforementioned anxiousness. Actually hitting would warrant much more than being "anxious".

I'd be compelled to wager on the accuracy of their weapons, as my geographical location would definitely be one of several high value targets for them. And I'm sorry if being "anxious" isn't strong enough of an emotion for you, but really it is just semantics.

Er, this is tautological. "If we're more confident, we'd be less passive." Well yeah, obviously. And what would that even do? It just proves the irrelevance of anyone's actions since you can't predict any positive behavioral changes on North Korea's part.

I was replying to you saying that the situation with North Korea isn't delicate. But it is. It most definitely is. Which is why the U.S is trying its best not to strongarm its way in until all other options are exhausted. If this situation ends ups being similar to what happened after the TD 2 launch in '06, well, the results are much more favorable than war.

Imagine the instability that would be caused with war. Countless Koreans flooding the Chinese border, IDPs wandering the landscape, with our military already stretched across the globe fighting other wars and conducting operations (not just Afghanistan). We'd have to instantly switch from years of fighting insurgencies to a conventional war again, combined with elements of an enemy who fight using guerilla tactics to make up for their outdated equipment...underground tunnels from the first Korean War being utilized...

Would we win? I think so. But at a major cost.

China has never prioritized relations like that, and seriously, who takes politicians at face value? China and America have little ideological common ground in public, but both have mutual dependence on the other's economy, in extremely simplistic deductions. The former is something to tout on the world stage, not, "We value our unbreakable relationship with the United States in our need to purchase U.S. Treasury debt because nothing else can satiate our absurd output of consumer goods."

They have,

According to the 1961 Sino–North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, China is obliged to defend North Korea against unprovoked aggression.

Breaking this treaty would further distance DPRK from China, which is what China doesn't want, because it may provoke more unpredictable behavior from DPRK.

This defense, of course, would depend on their definition of "unprovoked." Due to China's ambiguity on relations, we are unsure on what their definition of "unprovoked" would be. This uncertainty is another obstacle America has to overcome before any action could be made, for obvious reasons.

In short, China wants the best of both worlds...DPRK and the U.S...because a war would make them lose one or the other.

My link addressed a lot of that. First sentence: "China is North Korea's most important ally, biggest trading partner, and main source of food, arms, and fuel."

Exactly what I said: China gets much less back from North Korea than it gives them. Note that it's not vice-versa. It goes on to support my point:

"After Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006, experts say that China has reconsidered the nature of its alliance to include both pressure and inducements."

The purpose of my article was to point out the other, non-economic qualities China would lose by not defending DPRK...for example, having the country act as a buffer zone between them and South Korea, easing the military presence China would have to keep on its border if its territory included the northern part of the peninsula.

"Turning their backs" on North Korea is an impossibility at this point and wasn't the argument, just that they wouldn't forsake the U.S. when it came down to it.

But you seem to define "forsaking the U.S" as defending the North...which I very much think they would do, regardless of the recent doubts the Chinese have been having with their relations...not for the sake of DPRKs interests, but for China's own interests.

[CrossboneGundam]

For those who don't know, Kim Jong Il's first son is a reject residing in China who made his dad blush red when he tried to enter Japan illegally, his second son is a hippie who attended university in Europe, likes Eric Clapton and doesn't approve of his father's policies, and his third son is a mini-me replica of his pop and is only aged in his mid twenties.



This whole situation with North Korea is making me a bit anxious.

What situation? The one where you're a wuss for being scared of a third rate rogue state whose fearless leader is best known for looking like a middle aged woman and kidnapping south korean celebrities to force them to make movies for him?

At least Ahmadinejad wants to kill the jews.

[Spadesy]

What situation? The one where you're a wuss for being scared of a third rate rogue state whose fearless leader is best known for looking like a middle aged woman and kidnapping south korean celebrities to force them to make movies for him?

At least Ahmadinejad wants to kill the jews.

Thanks for proving you know zilch about the militaristic threat that DPRK presents.

Trolling as usual...aren't you tucked away in Oregon or something? Come on over here to the Pacific, at least the weather is nice.

[CrossboneGundam]

Thanks for proving you know zilch about the militaristic threat that DPRK presents.

Trolling as usual...aren't you tucked away in Oregon or something? Come on over here to the Pacific, at least the weather is nice.

It's not my fault you're emptying your bowels over a nonexistant threat. I assume you expect them to nuke us and invade with their overwhelming military might what with america being a timid, weak, peace-loving country and all.

The north koreans might be stupid, but even they're not stupid enough to actually go through with a real attack on the US. They have no mass-production capability for nuclear weapons, they have severely limited resources and even their traditional allies have been getting on their case about their recent posturing. It would be suicide to even cross the 38th.

Also nice geography, where'd you learn that, Texas?

POW!

And I'd predict you'll reply with some tired right wing jab about NObama being weak, a coward, a traitor, etc. being the reason why North Korea is a greater threat than the Soviets and aliens combined, but that would be self-defeating.

[Spadesy]

It's not my fault you're emptying your bowels over a nonexistant threat.

Anxious equates to emptying your bowels now...?

I understand you had a difficult childhood, especially if you ever got uncomfortable. It's okay...your gf can cope with the skidmarks when she does your laundry...

In all seriousness, my job description doesn't include getting complacent about foreign threats. Sue me.

The north koreans might be stupid, but even they're not stupid enough to actually go through with a real attack on the US. They have no mass-production capability for nuclear weapons, they have severely limited resources and even their traditional allies have been getting on their case about their recent posturing. It would be suicide to even cross the 38th.

Nobody was arguing about their attack capabilities against the U.S in the first place. WOOSH...right over your head...

What is of concern to the international community is how they'd harm surrounding nations, which DOES concern us, considering we have 26,000+ soldiers in Korea and about double that in Okinawa (mostly Marines), and a footprint in Asia as a whole.

I assume you expect them to nuke us and invade with their overwhelming military might what with america being a timid, weak, peace-loving country and all.

You didn't read the posts above at all. Go back to understand their most likely courses of action.

Also nice geography, where'd you learn that, Texas?

POW!

Uh oh, here it comes...!

...and, now!

And I'd predict you'll reply with some tired right wing jab about NObama being weak, a coward, a traitor, etc. being the reason why North Korea is a greater threat than the Soviets and aliens combined, but that would be self-defeating.

Man, really, what is it with you and being anti-"right wing?" I notice that you go on a "OMG YOU ARE A GUNSLINGING STOOPID TEXAN RIGHT WINGER HICK" bit anytime you have to deal with somebody talking about pro-American ideas in politics. I smell a hidden intention, complacency, or lack of interest in understanding current events...and if either of those are the case, it'd save you time to just not post in threads like these.

[Reidar]

"Could manage to build," yields time sensitivity - the future. What we are currently worried about.

Exactly, which is why I said otherwise - they can already target Okinawa now.

Landing on target is successful targeting...would I attempt to target a ship if my intention was to not hit it? That wouldn't be targeting. That would be more like "throwing weapons in the direction of..." Yes, they absolutely do have missiles that can range Okinawa and beyond.

Nope. Hitting isn't targeting. Targeting is the aiming process, allowed by the range in this case. The accuracy of the subsequent launch post-targeting is another thing altogether.

I'd be compelled to wager on the accuracy of their weapons, as my geographical location would definitely be one of several high value targets for them. And I'm sorry if being "anxious" isn't strong enough of an emotion for you, but really it is just semantics.

Uh, yeah, the irrelevance doesn't mean that their missile program in totality is irrelevant as a threat, just that it is to the aforementioned point of being "anxious" about it.

I was replying to you saying that the situation with North Korea isn't delicate. But it is. It most definitely is. Which is why the U.S is trying its best not to strongarm its way in until all other options are exhausted. If this situation ends ups being similar to what happened after the TD 2 launch in '06, well, the results are much more favorable than war.

Proves my point - "until all other options are exhausted" just speaks on the inevitability of it. If your foreign policy resides on simply refraining from blowing the other side up for now, then the intricacies to tread lightly on are broadened. That's a pretty easy tactic to fulfill. A "delicate" situation would be one where any minor triviality could off-set peaceful negotiations. - we're already past that point. North Korea will do what it wants regardless of how anyone behaves toward them.

Imagine the instability that would be caused with war. Countless Koreans flooding the Chinese border

That's a non sequitur. We were talking about the delicacy (or lack thereof) that could spark this war in the first place.

They have~

Breaking this treaty would further distance DPRK from China, which is what China doesn't want, because it may provoke more unpredictable behavior from DPRK.

Nowhere in this treaty do they "make it clear they will defend North Korea if the U.S is the first to act."

Like you go on to say, "unprovoked aggression" is an easy variable to take advantage of; any future aggression would certainly not be unprovoked by China's own symbolic admission of working with the allied nations as much as it already has.

The purpose of my article was to point out the other, non-economic qualities China would lose by not defending DPRK...

Right, and my point even before that was the economic interests trumping almost all else. And "if its territory included the northern part of the peninsula"? As in China integrating with the North and consequently bordering the South? I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.

But you seem to define "forsaking the U.S" as defending the North...

No. Definitely not. Forsaking the U.S. would be a proactive move, not an implied one. They've already done a fair share of the above.

[Mosinmatt]

It's not my fault you're emptying your They have no mass-production capability for nuclear weapons, t

And I'd predict you'll reply with some tired right wing jab about NObama being weak, a coward, a traitor, etc. being the reason why North Korea is a greater threat than the Soviets and aliens combined, but that would be self-defeating.
Even IF NK drop a nuke. I don't think anyone will be willing to drop one back on them. It carries bigger consequences if the "good guys" drop the bomb, even in retaliation. Obama has also stated he is EXTREMELY anti-nukes, and wants to rid the US supply.
North Korea isn't a threat to the United States, unless they make or buy a missle that can reach us (which Hawaii and Alaska are the most likely targets). But Japan, and South Korea? They are the ones sitting right next door to this nutjob.

Also...with nukes, you don't really need to "hit" your target. It is like horseshoes, and hand grenades. On a much larger scale.

[ComicalParamore]

This whole situation with North Korea is making me a bit anxious.

:D im more anxious than you! im a half hour train ride from seoul... im suppsed to be leaving this place august but now its come down to whether or not kim jong il does something stupid and then we're probably staying.... all this person want is to go home =TT.TT=. but just in case im sure we have enough air support within range to snuff him out if need be. you have osan air base and kunsan air base, not to mention hes very aware that my fighter squadron is here at the moment. even though we're on here to help open a new airbase its no real secret what the wild weasel 35th air wing is.

[SlackerDude]

It's depressing to know that a government like north korea's still exists in the 21st century...

[Spadesy]

Exactly, which is why I said otherwise - they can already target Okinawa now. ...

Nope. Hitting isn't targeting. Targeting is the aiming process, allowed by the range in this case. The accuracy of the subsequent launch post-targeting is another thing altogether.

But really, would you call the act of aiming at something and not quite hitting it, targeting?

If I told my GS boss on Monday that Korea can 'target' Okinawa with a TD2, he'd slap me silly if I explained to him the above definition of targeting after saying that. Targeting, in any military operations center, implies the ability to accurately hit something.

Uh, yeah, the irrelevance doesn't mean that their missile program in totality is irrelevant as a threat, just that it is to the aforementioned point of being "anxious" about it.

I don't see how it's irrelevant.

Proves my point - "until all other options are exhausted" just speaks on the inevitability of it. If your foreign policy resides on simply refraining from blowing the other side up for now, then the intricacies to tread lightly on are broadened. That's a pretty easy tactic to fulfill. A "delicate" situation would be one where any minor triviality could off-set peaceful negotiations. - we're already past that point. North Korea will do what it wants regardless of how anyone behaves toward them.

That would be your definition of a "delicate situation." Nobody has been killed yet, so it's safe to say we're still at that point. America's foreign policy isn't simply about blowing the other side up or leaving them alone - what makes this a delicate situation is that any initiative to keep NK from what they are doing may be considered a declaration of war. That is what we want to avoid for now. All America can do is employ its collection assets to see what the North is up to.

That's a non sequitur. We were talking about the delicacy (or lack thereof) that could spark this war in the first place.

And why not talk about the possible result?

Nowhere in this treaty do they "make it clear they will defend North Korea if the U.S is the first to act."

It's a treaty. It's not going to specifically say which countries China will defend the North against in case of aggression, but it's safe to say the U.S is included in the list.

Like you go on to say, "unprovoked aggression" is an easy variable to take advantage of; any future aggression would certainly not be unprovoked by China's own symbolic admission of working with the allied nations as much as it already has.

Any future aggression could be considered provoked. Remember how the world gave us the proverbial middle finger after Bush accused Iraq of having nuclear weapons, invaded the country, only to find that we couldn't find any of said nuclear weapons, regardless of intelligence that swears up and down that they had...nuclear weapons? America is, unfortunately, all about trying to get world opinion its side coming from even the most indifferent of nations.

And I'm sure you know how ambiguous and shady China can be...it will go with whatever benefits them the most, be it in economics or not having to deal with the population of the North in case of any conflict.

Right, and my point even before that was the economic interests trumping almost all else. And "if its territory included the northern part of the peninsula"? As in China integrating with the North and consequently bordering the South? I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.

China can also use economy as a weapon to say "no, don't do that" to the U.S. before any offensive operations against the North take place - that is one way of defending them. Economy is already hurting on both sides, and breaking off economic relations as a result of war wouldn't help anybody.

That is what I'm saying, if North Korea was just a part of China, and there wasn't a country to act as a buffer zone between South Korea, China would have to take control of a feeble, starving, brainwashed population in addition to significantly increasing its military presence on the border above South Korea. They don't want that burden.

No. Definitely not. Forsaking the U.S. would be a proactive move, not an implied one. They've already done a fair share of the above.

Understood. So it's safe to say, that China does want to keep a North Korea around for its own interests?

[The Million Dollar Prons]

China is totally interested in another country with no farmland, natural or unatural resources.

[Reidar]

But really, would you call the act of aiming at something and not quite hitting it, targeting?

Yes. Targeting = aiming, not hitting.

If I told my GS boss on Monday that Korea can 'target' Okinawa with a TD2, he'd slap me silly if I explained to him the above definition of targeting after saying that.

His hypothetical definition of targeting wouldn't be right, then. Targeting = aiming.

Targeting, in any military operations center, implies the ability to accurately hit something.

This is not the definition and, as coming from a military family in both Iran and America, is not some distinguished military meaning. The ability to hit something is accuracy. Targeting is not the ability to land on mark, it's setting up the mark to do so.

Sure, if someone pulls off a nice shot, you could say to them, "Nice targeting!" or "Nice aim!", but as the direction of course to hit, not the hit itself.

That would be your definition of a "delicate situation." Nobody has been killed yet, so it's safe to say we're still at that point. America's foreign policy isn't simply about blowing the other side up or leaving them alone - what makes this a delicate situation is that any initiative to keep NK from what they are doing may be considered a declaration of war. That is what we want to avoid for now. All America can do is employ its collection assets to see what the North is up to.

That's exactly why it's not a delicate situation - anything that can be done could lead to that same outcome. The window of opportunity is, therefore, very, very broad. We're definitely not at the aforementioned point of peaceful negotiations - who would actually saw we are?

And why not talk about the possible result?

It would be fine to, just not through pretending it to be the same point, which leaves the original unanswered.

It's a treaty. It's not going to specifically say which countries China will defend the North against in case of aggression

Which is why it's not valid evidence for your point about China's relationship priority and specifically making clear that they would be more beholden to North Korea than the United States in practice.

Any future aggression could be considered provoked.

This is what I said: "Any future aggression would certainly not be unprovoked." That means it would be provoked. Did you mean "unprovoked"?

Remember how the world gave us the proverbial middle finger after Bush accused Iraq of having nuclear weapons, invaded the country, only to find that we couldn't find any of said nuclear weapons, regardless of intelligence that swears up and down that they had...nuclear weapons? America is, unfortunately, all about trying to get world opinion its side coming from even the most indifferent of nations.

Definitely not analogous. North Korea has used its nuclear weapons and there would be no specious evidence (on that factor, anyways) to hedge bets on. I agree that a first strike on America's part wouldn't be internationally popular, but it would certainly not be an unprovoked attack.

And I'm sure you know how ambiguous and shady China can be...it will go with whatever benefits them the most, be it in economics or not having to deal with the population of the North in case of any conflict.

This is exactly my point on why they wouldn't "forsake" the U.S. just because of past treaties and alliances: the interest of their economy.

That is what I'm saying, if North Korea was just a part of China, and there wasn't a country to act as a buffer zone between South Korea, China would have to take control of a feeble, starving, brainwashed population in addition to significantly increasing its military presence on the border above South Korea. They don't want that burden.

And...just why and how would North Korea merge with China? Why is this a danger that they want to prevent?

Understood. So it's safe to say, that China does want to keep a North Korea around for its own interests?

Yes. My main point on this is that it's second in priority to maintaining their economic sustenance. It's still very important, but they have options of heavily militarizing the border even more, building additional walls, etc., although it'd certainly be a problem despite all that.

[CrossboneGundam]

Nobody was arguing about their attack capabilities against the U.S in the first place.

So then what are you so terrified of? They're going to hit a whale with their "satellite rockets"?

Also lol comebacks. I'll admit my prediction was a little off, your response was more "neocon thinktank" than "animeotaku99."

[Bernard_Monsha]

So then what are you so terrified of?


You do realize they have a large amount of chemical shells aimed at Seoul ready to go at a moments notice? The response we give will wipe them out but they are in it to do as much collateral damage as possible not win.

[Mosinmatt]

You do realize they have a large amount of chemical shells aimed at Seoul ready to go at a moments notice? The response we give will wipe them out but they are in it to do as much collateral damage as possible not win.

I read that it was "10,000 in one minute" as to the amount of shells they can release on Seoul.
It is obvious they can't win. They are just crying out for attention, and to flex their muscles.
Probably still pissy about the last war. If this were to get really bad, we would need to go to a conventional war with NK. Our troubles are already stretched thin, and trained to fight against unconventional warfare. Not to mention it would probably require a draft.