DaVinci 0 #26 October 9, 2006 QuoteNot for a terror point of view. No, but for a 1961(?) weapon built by the US Government it sure was stupid. Hence my vote for dumbest weapon ever. "Hey, lets shoot this nuke with an effective range that is further than we can shoot it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #27 October 9, 2006 >Hey, lets shoot this nuke with an effective range that is further than we can shoot it. It was a different time back then. If you could use this weapon to stop the inevitable massive attack by the Commies, then losing a few servicemen would be more than worth it. When you're not sure you're going to win, suicide weapons start looking like a better option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #28 October 9, 2006 Quote>Hey, lets shoot this nuke with an effective range that is further than we can shoot it. It was a different time back then. If you could use this weapon to stop the inevitable massive attack by the Commies, then losing a few servicemen would be more than worth it. When you're not sure you're going to win, suicide weapons start looking like a better option. Very much like the Japanese kamikazes. And of course the Japanese were allied with the Germans, who were led by Hitler. Are you saying the US Government in the early 1960's was like Hitler?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #29 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteNot for a terror point of view. No, but for a 1961(?) weapon built by the US Government it sure was stupid. Hence my vote for dumbest weapon ever. "Hey, lets shoot this nuke with an effective range that is further than we can shoot it". Beer! (I agree with you).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #30 October 9, 2006 >Are you saying the US Government in the early 1960's was like Hitler?? No, I'm defending gay GOP terrorist suicide bombers who develop nuclear weapons, then lie about it under oath. Do keep up! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #31 October 9, 2006 Quote>Are you saying the US Government in the early 1960's was like Hitler?? No, I'm defending gay GOP terrorist suicide bombers who develop nuclear weapons, then lie about it under oath. Do keep up! Mine has only 3 degrees of separation. Yours has at least 2 more; and it stands to reason that the simpler is the more probable. So why are you defending Hitler? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #32 October 9, 2006 >So why are you defending Hitler? Cause a catholic priest abused me when I was 19. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #33 October 9, 2006 Quote>So why are you defending Hitler? Cause a catholic priest abused me when I was 19. But you were over the age of consent. So you're obviously buying into the Newsmax double-talk that all of Foley's victims were adults. How can you fall for that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #34 October 9, 2006 QuoteVery much like the Japanese kamikazes. And of course the Japanese were allied with the Germans, who were led by Hitler. Are you saying the US Government in the early 1960's was like Hitler?? Wow. I bet you teach logic for a living, don't you. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #35 October 9, 2006 >So you're obviously buying into the Newsmax double-talk . . . Now, don't you be sayin that about Newsmax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #36 October 9, 2006 QuoteSeriously - in the run-up to the US's elections in less than a month, I think this is a golden opportunity for Republican political strategists to turn the debate away from Foley-gate and back to the GOP's strength, which is to play off people's fears on national security and defense issues. Should be interesting to see if the GOP seizes or squanders the opportunity. Your post brings up an interesting point. Do you think this could have any influence on our midterm elections? If so, did Kim do this on purpose with November a few weeks away? The guy is not an idiot and from what I've read many diplomats who have met him say he is pretty shrewd, a bit on the short side though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #37 October 9, 2006 QuoteSeriously - in the run-up to the US's elections in less than a month, I think this is a golden opportunity for Republican political strategists to turn the debate away from Foley-gate and back to the GOP's strength, which is to play off people's fears on national security and defense issues. Should be interesting to see if the GOP seizes or squanders the opportunity. Here's a different way it could go QuoteTest "fundamentally changes landscape" By Glenn Kessler The Washington Post Related North Korea claims successful nuclear test WASHINGTON — North Korea's apparent nuclear test might well be regarded as a failure of the Bush administration's nuclear-nonproliferation policy. Since George W. Bush became president, North Korea has restarted its nuclear reactor and increased its stock of weapons-grade plutonium, so it might now have enough for 10 or 11 weapons, compared with one or two when Bush took office. North Korea's test could also unleash a nuclear-arms race in Asia, with Japan and South Korea feeling pressure to build nuclear weapons for defensive reasons. Yet a number of senior U.S. officials have said privately that they would welcome a North Korean test as a clarifying event to forever end the debate within the Bush administration about whether to solve the problem through diplomacy or tough actions designed to destabilize North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's grip on power. Now U.S. officials will push for tough sanctions at the U.N. Security Council and are considering unilateral measures, including stopping and inspecting every ship that goes in and out of North Korea. "This fundamentally changes the landscape now," one U.S. official said Sunday night. When Bush became president in 2000, Pyongyang's reactor was frozen under a 1994 agreement with the United States. Clinton administration officials thought they were so close to a deal limiting North Korean missiles that Bill Clinton seriously considered making the first visit to Pyongyang by a U.S. president. But conservatives had long been deeply skeptical of the deal freezing North Korea's program — known as the Agreed Framework — in part because it called for building two light-water nuclear reactors (largely funded by the Japanese and South Koreans). When then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said in 2001 he favored continuing the Clinton approach, Bush rebuked him. Bush then labeled North Korea part of an "axis of evil," further riling Pyongyang. U.S. officials say Bush carried a deep hatred of Kim and his dictatorial regime, and often chafed at efforts by his advisers to tone down his language about Kim. The missile negotiations with North Korea ended and no talks were held between senior U.S. and North Korean officials for nearly two years. Many top U.S. officials were determined to kill the Agreed Framework, and when U.S. intelligence discovered evidence that North Korea had a clandestine program to enrich uranium, they had their chance. A U.S. delegation confronted North Korea about the secret program, and the United States pressed to cut off fuel-oil deliveries promised under the Agreed Framework. North Korea, in response, evicted international inspectors and restarted its nuclear reactor. Pyongyang moved quickly to reprocess 8,000 spent fuel rods — previously in a cooling pond under 24-hour international surveillance — to obtain plutonium for nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Bush administration, hampered by internal disputes, struggled to fashion a diplomatic effort to confront North Korea. Unlike the Clinton administration — which suggested to North Korea it would attack if it moved to reprocess the plutonium — the Bush administration never set definite "red lines" that North Korea must not cross. Bush administration officials argued that would only tempt North Korea to cross those lines. While Clinton had reached the Agreed Framework through lengthy bilateral negotiations, the Bush administration felt North Korea would be less likely to wiggle out of a future deal if it also included its regional neighbors — China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. But it took months of internal struggles to arrange the meetings — and North Korea insisted it wanted only bilateral talks with the United States. The talks largely stalled. After Bush was re-elected, new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to revitalize the six-nation talks, which a year ago yielded a "statement of principles" to guide negotiations, including the possibility of economic help, security assurances and normalization of relations with the U.S. if North Korea dismantled its nuclear programs. To the anger of conservatives in the administration, the statement also suggested North Korea might one day be supplied with light-water reactors as envisioned in the Clinton deal. But that proved to be the high point of the talks. The administration said the reactor project was officially terminated — and North Korea would need to pass many hurdles before it could ever envision a civilian nuclear program. The U.S. Treasury Department, meanwhile, focused on North Korean counterfeiting activities, and many banks around the world began to refuse to deal with North Korean companies, further angering Pyongyang. The nuclear test now likely will test the proposition of those Bush administration officials who argued that a confrontational approach would finally bring North Korea to heel. Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #38 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteSeriously - in the run-up to the US's elections in less than a month, I think this is a golden opportunity for Republican political strategists to turn the debate away from Foley-gate and back to the GOP's strength, which is to play off people's fears on national security and defense issues. Should be interesting to see if the GOP seizes or squanders the opportunity. Your post brings up an interesting point. Do you think this could have any influence on our midterm elections? If so, did Kim do this on purpose with November a few weeks away? The guy is not an idiot and from what I've read many diplomats who have met him say he is pretty shrewd, a bit on the short side though. Depends on whether Kim agrees with kallend (the issue will hurt the GOP at the polls) or agrees with me (the issue will help the GOP). My sources tell me that Kim frequently trolls DZ.com, so we'll find out soon enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #39 October 9, 2006 >Do you think this could have any influence on our midterm elections? It might. It might tempt people to vote for the GOP, especially if the idea of aggressive action makes them feel more secure. Traditionally the GOP has relied upon scary outside threats to justify its actions and attract votes. "Don't vote for the terrorist enablers. Vote for people like us who want to fight the Evil Terrorists, so they don't blow up your homes!" And surely a nuclear North Korea is a great new scare. Also, Bush has surely been good for Jong-Il's nuclear aspirations, with all the distractions of Iraq and Iran. Makes sense that he'd want his policies to continue - and thus have the GOP remain in control of congress. But overall I think it's a bad idea to consider what lunatics like Jong-Il want when thinking about who to vote for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #40 October 10, 2006 QuoteI doubt China and Russian will do anything effective in this situation. Having millions of starving brain-washed refugees streaming into your country is a serious consideration for them. Although a concern, the ones really scared about a collapse of the DPRK regime economically are the South Koreans. Chances are refugees would head south of the border, not North. Germany painfully swallowed reunification with East Germany, I doubt it would go as smoothly for the South Koreans. East Germans were light years ahead of the North Koreans economically. China can sceal its borders easily, which the SOuth Koreans couldn't do after preaching reunification for decades. A smooth, controlled transition is what everyone in the region hopes for, although it would probably take at least 30 years, so highly unlikely. Nuclear weapons in the DPRK are as much about political leverage in the DPRK as they are about military might. In the eyes of the regime, it gives them more weight in any negotiations sure to follow. The 5 other parties have to deal with Pyong Yang, or take the risk to see a new arms race in Asia, which the US, China and Russia will not tolerate. It's going to take endless negotiations, and sweet loan packages, but will probably bear fruits in 2 to 3 years. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #41 October 10, 2006 Bwawaawagaga. And this coming from a British who forgets how many countries during how many centuries, The UK raped, enslaved and abused many civilizations around the world.... That is good humor"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #42 October 10, 2006 Hey no one told you to take that altar boy position in the Boston Diocesis.."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #43 October 10, 2006 QuoteLooks like the SOBs did it. Going to be interesting to see what the world's response will be. Thoughts, anyone? The reports may be premature. http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061009/ap/d8kl919g0.html Is Kim trying to BS the world? If so why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #44 October 10, 2006 QuoteLooks like the SOBs did it. Going to be interesting to see what the world's response will be. Thoughts, anyone? Are Nuclear weapons WMD's???? and therefore would North Korea be in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction???----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #45 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteLooks like the SOBs did it. Going to be interesting to see what the world's response will be. Thoughts, anyone? Are Nuclear weapons WMD's???? and therefore would North Korea be in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction??? Doesn't really matter. The UN will most likely not do anything but pass resolution after resolution anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #46 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteLooks like the SOBs did it. Going to be interesting to see what the world's response will be. Thoughts, anyone? Are Nuclear weapons WMD's???? and therefore would North Korea be in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction??? Doesn't really matter. The UN will most likely not do anything but pass resolution after resolution anyway. Yes this is probably true, however Dubbya Bush did invade Iraq because they apparently (although never found to this date) had WMD's and were in violation of UN regualtions. Therefore logically the US will invade North Korea.... Is there any Oil in North Korea?----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #47 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLooks like the SOBs did it. Going to be interesting to see what the world's response will be. Thoughts, anyone? Are Nuclear weapons WMD's???? and therefore would North Korea be in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction??? Doesn't really matter. The UN will most likely not do anything but pass resolution after resolution anyway. Yes this is probably true, however Dubbya Bush did invade Iraq because they apparently (although never found to this date) had WMD's and were in violation of UN regualtions. Therefore logically the US will invade North Korea.... Is there any Oil in North Korea? Nah. We'll let France and Germany get this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #48 October 10, 2006 >The reports may be premature. Perhaps. There are several possibilities: 1) He faked it by getting thousands of tons of high explosive and setting them off underground. 2) It was a successful test of a small nuclear device; at least in the west, these are the devices that most need testing. 3) It was a successful test of a tamped device or a barely-critical device. This allows testing of the basic design without wasting too much enriched uranium/plutonium. 4) It was a successful test of a large nuclear device, but the device was decoupled to reduce its seismic signature. 4) It was a partially successful test of a large nuclear device - criticality was achieved but the yield was not as high as designed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #49 October 10, 2006 Care to speculate why they would claim a nuclear test when in fact the test wasn't successful? Surely they must know the truth would be discovered eventually. Could Kim be in cahoots with Karl Rove to distract from the Foley incident? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #50 October 10, 2006 Quote>The reports may be premature. Perhaps. There are several possibilities: 1) He faked it by getting thousands of tons of high explosive and setting them off underground. 2) It was a successful test of a small nuclear device; at least in the west, these are the devices that most need testing. 3) It was a successful test of a tamped device or a barely-critical device. This allows testing of the basic design without wasting too much enriched uranium/plutonium. 4) It was a successful test of a large nuclear device, but the device was decoupled to reduce its seismic signature. 4) It was a partially successful test of a large nuclear device - criticality was achieved but the yield was not as high as designed. you forgot the most plausible possibility... 5) Kim Jong Il let out the largest fart in history after gorging himself on greasy american food that he has such a penchant for. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
