Text 15403, 112 rader
Skriven 2007-06-13 13:26:44 av Josh Hill (1816.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 05:36:41 GMT, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"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?

Didn't mean to imply that they wanted to anger the Chinese. Quite the
opposite -- they knew it would, royally. Which means that they had to
have a damn good reason to do it. The Beloved Leader strikes me as
someone who has a knack for sensing just how far he can push. He knows
that China can take him out if it wants. Seems to me that he had to
have a really good reason to anger his ally.

>> Their extortion was never the real issue: we, and other countries,
>> gave in to it long ago.
>
>Under Bill Clinton, yes I remember.

And again under George W. Bush with the very same terms Clinton got,
except that now they have a bomb.

>> 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.

The North Koreans made it clear early on when we asked them what they
wanted that it wasn't about a payoff,. but about the security of the
Beloved Leader.

>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.

We had plenty of resources. The army was still fresh. No one, the
North Koreans included, thought the Administration would manage to get
the world's strongest military bogged down in Iraq. The Pentagon was
saying that we had the resources to fight a war in North Korea, if
need be. Seoul was, as you say, hostage, but with Bush rattling his
sabers and the US ignoring the UN and breaking with its allies Kim had
no idea what we'd do.

>>>>  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.

I can't speak to secrets. I do know that even conventional nuclear
weapons aren't very effective against deeply buried targets. Would the
Administration be making all this fuss about the development of
nuclear bunker busters, which could only be employed as a weapon of
last resort, if there were conventional alternatives?

-- 
Josh

"Paranoia results from a proper perception
of the food chain." - Boots
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)