Text 15321, 91 rader
Skriven 2007-06-07 05:36:41 av Vorlonagent (1734.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:uhjd63tipq8i20um9vle3eukb4t6j7j0b7@4ax.com...

>>NK is in an awkward position.  They had to keep escalating to avoid losing
>>face.  IMHO, they were never *trying* to build a nuke, just finesse Bush
>>into giving them more money to NOT build one.  When Bush told them to get
>>stuffed, they lost face and now were obligated by honor to build the bomb
>>they threatened to build or have Bush offer them the aid money they 
>>wanted.
>>
>>In short, they HAD to test, even if it was unwise to do so.  It may be 
>>hard
>>to stop them from doing a second test unless we decide to go back to 
>>paying
>>them.
>
> My theory's different. They intentionally slowed and delayed the
> talks, and then they tested the nuke knowing that it would piss off
> the Chinese mightily.

Why?  NK needs chinese grain shipments and support to operate.  What would 
the NKs gain from angering the chinese?


> Their extortion was never the real issue: we, and other countries,
> gave in to it long ago.

Under Bill Clinton, yes I remember.


> What they wanted, in light of his saber
> rattling, was an iron-clad guarantee that Bush wouldn't take military
> action.

The timing of the action is the key flaw in your theory.  The obviously 
chose their moment.  NK threatened to restart devopment just as the Bush was 
in final prep for the invasion of iraq.  The US was peoccupied elesewhere 
and VERY preocupied.  We didnt have the time to deal with them.  By rights 
the US should have followed the expedient solution and simply paid the NKs 
more to get them out of our hair.

A payoff is far and away the first most likely expected action (even though 
Bush chose differently), not NK bulling ahead and developing a nuke, so it's 
hard to see much substance to the "intimidated NKs grabbing for a nuclear 
security blanket" angle.

There are ample checks on US aggression against NK.  First, it was already 
focused on iraq and the US didn't have the resources to strike at NK or the 
ability to manage the outcome to control the collateral damage to SK 
(possible shelling of Seoul) and NK refugees streaming into China.  NK had 
and has a reasonably secure position even without a nuke.


>>>  And the Iranians have learned from past mistakes (especially those of
>>> Saddam) and don't have the reactor and centrifuges sitting around above
>>> ground in non-hardened facilities. This makes it considerably harder to
>>> pull the trigger with as high a level of certainty that we will do much
>>> more than wake up any civilians sleeping in the area.
>>
>>Oh I'm sure we have bunker busters.  If we're smart, we'd lod them with 
>>copy
>>machine toner
>>
>>Those centrefuges are VERY sensetive.  :)
>
> Conventional bunker busters aren't very effective against deeply
> buried targets.

They don't need to be in this special case.  I'm telling you, copy machine 
toner.

Besides, I would be very surprised if we didn't have some unconventional 
bunker-busters by this time.  I think about a half-ton of depeleted uranium 
delivered by ICBM would be very effective, if very rattling for everybody in 
the region with radar.

-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent

"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."

"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)