N Korea Now Threatens US Aircraft Carriers

[Lilly]

41 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Well we just bombed Syria for a chemical attack which we still dont know who perpetrated: ...

True, but we do from which airfield the planes containing the chemicals came from...we just don't know which 'player' was behind the attack. Now, when we're talking about North Korea there's only one entity (Kim Jung Un's dictatorship) that could be behind launching missiles from North Korea. It's a very different situation from what's currently happening in Syria (where there are multiple players involved).

[Farmer77]

Just now, Lilly said:

True, but we do from which airfield the planes containing the chemicals came from...we just don't know which 'player' was behind the attack. Now, when we're talking about North Korea there's only one entity (Kim Jung Un's dictatorship) that could be behind launching missiles from North Korea. It's a very different situation from what's currently happening in Syria (where there are multiple players involved).

Maybe im wrong but I dont think we even actually know that.  We know that planes from that airfield dropped bombs around the same time the gas was released, it is assumed by the west the gas came from those bombs. 

[Lilly]

I still say we'd see (using satellite technology) if North Korea launches a missile at any of its neighbors. I'm pretty sure we're watching them like hawks at this point.

[The Caspian Hare]

Things may be changing, I believe there is a big shift in China's stance underway, while on the US side the amount of attention being paid to this issue indicates it is of major focus and the "strategic patience" strategy of the previous administration is truly abandoned.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39694640

In an unusual move, the entire US Senate is being called to the White House for a briefing on North Korea.

Washington has become increasingly concerned at North Korean missile and nuclear tests and threats to its neighbours and the US.

The briefing, involving 100 senators as well as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis, is being held on Wednesday.

 

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2090102/did-trump-xi-call-reveal-subtle-shift-chinas-stance

It was the second time in a month that Xi and Trump discussed the North Korean nuclear threat since their first face-to-face summit at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where Pyongyang’s ­accelerated weapons programmes also topped the agenda.

But in a shift from Beijing’s usual stand, Xi did not talk of the need to seek solutions to the ­nuclear tensions through talks and peaceful means.

Instead, Xi said all parties concerned must “shoulder their due responsibilities and meet each other halfway” to defuse tensions and achieve denuclearisation and stability on the peninsula, according to Xinhua.

[Farmer77]

Just now, The Russian Hare said:

Things may be changing, I believe there is a big shift in China's stance underway, while on the US side the amount of attention being paid to this issue indicates it is of major focus and the "strategic patience" strategy of the previous administration is truly abandoned.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39694640

In an unusual move, the entire US Senate is being called to the White House for a briefing on North Korea.

Washington has become increasingly concerned at North Korean missile and nuclear tests and threats to its neighbours and the US.

The briefing, involving 100 senators as well as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis, is being held on Wednesday.

So um thats kinda freaking scary. 

[CrimsonKing]

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

So um thats kinda freaking scary. 

I think the lil fat man may be feeling close to losing face (and that's a lotta face )

He's done blustered himself into a deep hole in front of his people and i do not believe he will give up his program now from fear of losing his "divinity" in the eyes of his people...no matter what China thinks either!

 

[RoofGardener]

On 4/24/2017 at 1:07 PM, Farmer77 said:

Well we just bombed Syria for a chemical attack which we still dont know who perpetrated: UN commission on Syria not ruling out various sources of ‘chemical agent release’ in Idlib 

The commission continues to explore all avenues and theories… there are so many… regarding the release of this nerve agent and all other incidents in Khan Sheykhun on that day,” he said.

“We weren’t able to identify which air force conducted the attacks. We have just concluded that [the attacks] have occurred.”

 

so I dont think everyone can literally see everything going down and whats really scary is I dont think people even want to anymore, leaving all kinds of room for military industrial complex hijinks. 

Yeeeesss... except.. that isn't the FULL story perhaps ? 

The commission you refer to is actually called the "Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic". It is called "independent", but it is a sub-committee of the UN Human Rights Commission... an organisation one breath away from being disbanded, as was it's predecessor, on the grounds of being hopelessly compromised by Islamism. 

The only suprising thing about thIs "independent" commission is that is has not YET found a way to blame Israel for the events. 

Of course, that does not NECESSARILY mean that it is wrong. But.. as a source... it has to be regarded with caution !

[Farmer77]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

Yeeeesss... except.. that isn't the FULL story perhaps ? 

The commission you refer to is actually called the "Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic". It is called "independent", but it is a sub-committee of the UN Human Rights Commission... an organisation one breath away from being disbanded, as was it's predecessor, on the grounds of being hopelessly compromised by Islamism. 

The only suprising thing about thIs "independent" commission is that is has not YET found a way to blame Israel for the events. 

Of course, that does not NECESSARILY mean that it is wrong. But.. as a source... it has to be regarded with caution !

So you're saying that a committee which has been compromised by islam would make a biased report in the favor of a secular leader who is fighting muslim extremism? 

[RoofGardener]

Of course not FArmer77. I am suggesting that is is likely that they where selected under a a broadly Islamist agenda based on their tendency to be anti-Western. 

The purpose of the report is NOT to criticise Assad, but to cast doubt on the actions of "The West". 

It's not that Al Azhar or Riyadh is directly controlling the committee "minute by minute"... they created their "useful idiots" a decade ago, wound up the key, and allowed it to stagger forwards. It doesn't matter if it fails to follow a specific Islamist tactical agenda, providing only that it broadly follows the Strategic plan of weakening The Kuffir. (and in THIS current context, that means the West in general, and Donald Trump in particular)

Edited April 25, 2017 by RoofGardener

[Farmer77]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

Of course not FArmer77. I am suggesting that is is likely that they where selected under a a broadly Islamist agenda based on their tendency to be anti-Western. 

The purpose of the report is NOT to criticise Assad, but to cast doubt on the actions of "The West". 

So in your opinion theres noone who can be trusted as an independent source of verification? 

Thats mostly my opinion btw. 

[RoofGardener]

I'd trust Saruman, and myself !

And I'm not entirely sure about myself  

[Space Commander Travis]

Why's this thread been taken over by people going on about Islam as well as everywhere else? This was the one area of US foreign "policy" that couldn't be blamed on the Muslims, or the Jews, until now.

[Farmer77]

Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Why's this thread been taken over by people going on about Islam as well as everywhere else? This was the one area of US foreign "policy" that couldn't be blamed on the Muslims, or the Jews, until now.

Islam is the driving factor in all US foreign policy. Without the justifications which Islam provides we would not be on the constant war footing we are...

Oh and I replied earlier and TOTALLY didnt realize what thread i was on  

[Apyr]

On 4/24/2017 at 1:42 AM, Frank Merton said:

This is the first marginally credible threat I've head from him.  Like the Argentines, he might get a lucky strike in.

In the end, N. Korea cannot be allowed an arsenal of nuclear weapons.  This would create a blackmail situation the world could not tolerate, so it is better to get whatever is going to happen over with now than later.  I would say, by way of "negotiating" with him, that it would be wise to try to make this fact clear to him (if it is indeed a fact -- if Trump is really just a loudmouth, then we will end up with N. Korea fully arsenaled (my various dictionaries say there is no such word in English -- for shame on English).

 

Did you mean to say locked and loaded?

[Frank Merton]

7 hours ago, Hi-NRG Eurobeat Man said:

Did you mean to say locked and loaded?

Well, no, not quite.  What I want is a word that says one has available for use (maybe in warehouses) a sufficient supply of some weapon to fight a war with.  Using normal English suffixes and suffix rules, that would lead to "arsenaled" (has in one's arsenal) but the word doesn't exist.  I presume this is because the longer phrase I used for a definition is adequate for the few times such a concept is needed -- but I think it lacks directness, clarity and force.

Your expression "locked and loaded" (for "locked" I presume you mean "targeted" and for "loaded" I guess you mean ready to fire might be replaced by a more succinct word like "ready."

All this is of course something of interest only to linguists whose native language is not English.

(There is also the cliché "ready, aim, fire," seen in cheap movies and the like -- just to confuse the issue).

[Frank Merton]

7 hours ago, Hi-NRG Eurobeat Man said:

Did you mean to say locked and loaded?

Well, no, not quite.  What I want is a word that says one has available for use (maybe in warehouses) a sufficient supply of some weapon to fight a war with.  Using normal English suffixes and suffix rules, that would lead to "arsenaled" (has in one's arsenal) but the word doesn't exist.  I presume this is because the longer phrase I used for a definition is adequate for the few times such a concept is needed -- but I think it lacks directness, clarity and force.

Your expression "locked and loaded" (for "locked" I presume you mean "targeted" and for "loaded" I guess you mean ready to fire might be replaced by a more succinct word like "ready."

All this is of course something of interest only to linguists whose native language is not English.

(There is also the cliché "ready, aim, fire," seen in cheap movies and the like -- just to confuse the issue).

[Frank Merton]

7 hours ago, Hi-NRG Eurobeat Man said:

Did you mean to say locked and loaded?

Well, no, not quite.  What I want is a word that says one has available for use (maybe in warehouses) a sufficient supply of some weapon to fight a war with.  Using normal English suffixes and suffix rules, that would lead to "arsenaled" (has in one's arsenal) but the word doesn't exist.  I presume this is because the longer phrase I used for a definition is adequate for the few times such a concept is needed -- but I think it lacks directness, clarity and force.

Your expression "locked and loaded" (for "locked" I presume you mean "targeted" and for "loaded" I guess you mean ready to fire might be replaced by a more succinct word like "ready."

All this is of course something of interest only to linguists whose native language is not English.

(There is also the cliché "ready, aim, fire," seen in cheap movies and the like -- just to confuse the issue).

8 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Islam is the driving factor in all US foreign policy. Without the justifications which Islam provides we would not be on the constant war footing we are...

Oh and I replied earlier and TOTALLY didnt realize what thread i was on  

I don't see what Islam might have to do with North Korea.

 

On 4/24/2017 at 8:05 PM, Lilly said:

I still say we'd see (using satellite technology) if North Korea launches a missile at any of its neighbors. I'm pretty sure we're watching them like hawks at this point.

Missiles are harder to see and harder to shoot down, and there are all sorts of things the launcher can do to make a hit even more difficult (like multiple launches of dummy warheads -- cheap, easy to launch, and making getting the actual warhead much more difficult).  Even a cloud of ball bearing surrounding the missile launch can have a similar effect.

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Well, no, not quite.  What I want is a word that says one has available for use (maybe in warehouses) a sufficient supply of some weapon to fight a war with.  Using normal English suffixes and suffix rules, that would lead to "arsenaled" (has in one's arsenal) but the word doesn't exist.  I presume this is because the longer phrase I used for a definition is adequate for the few times such a concept is needed -- but I think it lacks directness, clarity and force.

Your expression "locked and loaded" (for "locked" I presume you mean "targeted" and for "loaded" I guess you mean ready to fire might be replaced by a more succinct word like "ready."

All this is of course something of interest only to linguists whose native language is not English.

(There is also the cliché "ready, aim, fire," seen in cheap movies and the like -- just to confuse the issue).

Nuclear Weapon State is the term in the Treaty.

[Frank Merton]

45 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Nuclear Weapon State is the term in the Treaty.

All this does present several worries.  One is that the N. Koreans get lucky and down a US ship.  This gives Trump excuses to do all sorts of things.

Another is a general war on the peninsula, with the US, S. Korea, and probably China and Japan on one side and the North and Russia on the other.  I would doubt the Russians would want such a thing, but once committed it is hard to see how it could be contained.

A third is that nothing happens and the North goes ahead with its development, making Trump look the fool -- and he wouldn't like that and might act unilaterally even without support from either the South or China.

Or Trump swallows his pride and we end up with a lunatic in control of a nuclear arsenal, blackmailing the South for money and who knows what else.

History will happen; I see no way out of this mess, but I hope there are smarter people around who do.  Maybe we will get lucky and something inside N. Korea happens that removes the problem, or we arrange something to happen.  I think probably a lot of the rocket failures have already been of that nature.

[RoofGardener]

14 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

.....

Missiles are harder to see and harder to shoot down, and there are all sorts of things the launcher can do to make a hit even more difficult (like multiple launches of dummy warheads -- cheap, easy to launch, and making getting the actual warhead much more difficult).  Even a cloud of ball bearing surrounding the missile launch can have a similar effect.

Not with NK technology ! If they launched a cloud of dummy missiles, then (a) half of them would blow up on the launchpad, and (b) they would be unable to stay as a "group", and would radically diverge trajectory; the US Fleet would only need to worry about the one heading towards themselves. (assuming ANY of the missiles would be capable of remaining even roughly on target). 

As for the idea of NK missiles being able to deploy active defences (e.g. ejecting a cloud of ball-bearings JUST at the point when the US ships are about to engage them with ABM missiles) then... well.... good luck with THAT one  

[+and-then]

On 4/23/2017 at 2:16 PM, Farmer77 said:

I do hope you have children who will be doing the cleanup along side mine when they're drafted to clean up the mess left by "lancing that boil" . 

It must be a beautiful world you inhabit.  You can sit back, snipe at your leisure, accept no facts that run counter to your mindset and blame others who might want to actually keep your children from being killed by nuclear terror.  Yep, sounds like Nirvana for malcontents.  I'm curious, do you say stuff like this just to get a rise or do you actually believe mean old uncle Sam just wants to crush and consume a nation with ABSOLUTELY NO resources we need?  I'm going with the "stir the pot" answer where you're concerned.  Nobody could really be that stupid.

[The Caspian Hare]

On 4/24/2017 at 8:14 AM, Frank Merton said:

At some point both Iran and N. Korea will test a nuclear weapon.  What then?  (Iran may be banned from such a test by the agreement -- I'm not sure).  What if a country like, say, Switzerland, conducts such a test?

IRan has less need to acquire nuclear weapons for a couple of reasons. First they are a larger, stronger country with more modern equipment. North Korea's conventional military is antiquated and it has little budget for training, hence why it needs WMD as a deterrent. Iran also dominates the STraits of Hormuz and can control (or at least strongly contest) access to the Persian gulf in the event of hostilities. They have well-developed unconventional forces in the region that can carry out sabotage and terrorism if necessary. They have domestic sources of oil. They are on good terms with both China and Russia while NK's relations with its only ally China are strained. Because they are strong in many ways, WMD are not as tempting and trying to acquire them may be more trouble than it's  worth.

[Space Commander Travis]

6 hours ago, The Russian Hare said:

IRan has less need to acquire nuclear weapons for a couple of reasons. First they are a larger, stronger country with more modern equipment. North Korea's conventional military is antiquated and it has little budget for training, hence why it needs WMD as a deterrent. Iran also dominates the STraits of Hormuz and can control (or at least strongly contest) access to the Persian gulf in the event of hostilities. They have well-developed unconventional forces in the region that can carry out sabotage and terrorism if necessary. They have domestic sources of oil. They are on good terms with both China and Russia while NK's relations with its only ally China are strained. Because they are strong in many ways, WMD are not as tempting and trying to acquire them may be more trouble than it's  worth.

But don't forget that they Want to Destroy Israel ^(TM), which overrides any considerations of commonsense. 

[RoofGardener]

Weeell.... President Trump has just given the special NK briefing to all 100 Senators. The US carrier task force is in place. The THAAD anti-missile system is - apparently - now ready for use in South Korea.

How does And Then's signature go again ?

"We've cast the world.... we've set the stage...."

[Space Commander Travis]

52 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Weeell.... President Trump has just given the special NK briefing to all 100 Senators. The US carrier task force is in place. The THAAD anti-missile system is - apparently - now ready for use in South Korea.

How does And Then's signature go again ?

"We've cast the world.... we've set the stage...."

I love the idea of a buffoon with no political experience at all supposedly giving a "briefing" to the entire Senate. I wonder why these people, some of whom must have some concern for the Constitution and the supposedly democratic society they claim to live in, are willing to be puppets in an absurd performance put on by a silly little blustering absurdity who's determined* to prove himself as a Strong, Determined Dictato- Leader. 

 

* unless he's distracted by some Beautiful Choclocate Cake, perhaps